The operational history of The Order can only be understood within a
framework of the Hegelian dialectic process. Quite simply this is
the notion that conflict creates history.
From this axiom it follows that controlled conflict can create a
predetermined history. For example: When
the Trilateral Commission
discusses "managed conflict", as it does extensively in its
literature, the Commission implies the managed use of conflict for
long run predetermined ends - not for the mere random exercise of
manipulative control to solve a problem.
The dialectic takes this Trilateral "managed conflict" process one
step further. In Hegelian terms, an existing force (the thesis)
generates a counterforce (the antithesis). Conflict between the two
forces results in the forming of a synthesis. Then the process
starts all over again: Thesis is antithesis results in synthesis.
The synthesis sought by the Establishment is called
the New World
Order. Without controlled conflict this New World Order will not
come about. Random individual actions of persons in society would
not lead to this synthesis, it's artificial, therefore it has to be
created. And this is being done with the calculated, managed, use of
conflict. And all the while this synthesis is being sought, there is
no profit in playing the involved parties against one another.
explains why the International bankers backed the Nazis, the Soviet
Union, North Korea, North Vietnam, ad nauseum, against the United
States. The "conflict" built profits while pushing the world ever
closer to One World Government. The process continues today.
We apologize for the poor quality of some documents included in this
volume. These are the best copies in existence today. In fact, it is
a miracle they survived at all ... For example, letters between
Patriarch Amos Pinchot (Club D. 95) and Patriarch William Kent (Club
D. 85) Would almost certainly have been destroyed if a New York
State Commission had not seized the documents as part of an
investigation into subversion in the United States.
However, even where contents cannot be clearly identified, the very
existence of even a fragmentary text proves a vital point: There is
a joint calculated effort among Patriarchs to bring about a specific
objective. Furthermore, the diverse conflicting nature of these
efforts, commented upon even in letters between Patriarchs, can only
be explained in the terms of the Hegelian dialectic.
In brief, the existence of these documents is just as important as
the nature of the contents. It demonstrates joint planned actions,
ergo: A Conspiracy!
Antony C. Sutton
Return to Contents
Memorandum Number One:
Created Conflict And The Dialectic Process
The first volume of this series Introduction To The Order described
in broad terms the nature and objectives of The Order.
Our first hypothesis, that the U.S. was ruled by an elite, secret
society . was supported by documentary evidence: such a secret
society does exist, its membership is concealed, and disclosure of
membership is not a voluntary effort. Further, since publication of
the first volume, the Sterling Library at Yale University which has
major holdings of their records has refused to allow researchers
further access to Russell Trust papers (the legal name for The
We also argued in the first volume that the operations of The Order
must be seen and explained in terms of the Hegelian dialectic
process. Their operations cannot be explained in terms of any other
philosophy; therefore The Order cannot be described as "right" or
"left," secular or religious, Marxist or Capitalist. The Order, and
its objectives, is all of these and none of these.
In Hegelian philosophy the conflict of political "right" and
political "left," or thesis and antithesis in Hegelian terms, is
essential to the forward movement of history and historical change
itself. Conflict between thesis and antithesis brings about a
synthesis, i.e., a new historical situation.
Our descriptive world history in the West and Marxist countries
consists only of description and analysis within a political
framework of "right" or "left." For example, historical work
published in the West looks at communism and socialism either
through the eyes of financial capitalism or Marxism. Historical work
published in the Soviet Union looks at the West only through Marxist
However, there is another frame for historical analysis that
has never (so far as we can determine) been utilized, i.e., to use a
framework of Hegelian logic, to determine if those elites who
control the State use the dialectic process to create a
predetermined historical synthesis.
Only tantalizing glimpses of any such creative process can be found
in modern historical works. The most convincing glimpses are in the
late Carroll Quigley's Tragedy And Hope which we shall quote below.
Rarely some politicians on the periphery of elitist power have
allowed brief insights into the public eye.
For example, President
Woodrow Wilson made the revealing statement:
"Some of the biggest
men in the U.S. in the fields of commerce and manufacturing know
that there is a power so organized, so subtle, so complete, so
pervasive that they had better not speak above their breath when
they speak in condemnation of it."
Who or what is this power? And how is it used?
This series argues that the current world situation has been
deliberately created by this elitist power more or less by
manipulation of "right" and "left" elements. We argue that the most
powerful of all world elites has during the past 100 years or so
developed both right and left elements to bring about a New World
There is no question that the so-called establishment in the U.S.
uses "managed conflict." The practice of "managing" crises to bring
about a favorable outcome, that is, favorable to the elite, is
freely admitted in the literature of, for example, The Trilateral
Furthermore, there is no question that decisions of war
and peace are made by a few in the elite and not by the many in the
voting process through a political referendum. This volume explores
some major conflict decisions made by the few in The Order and the
way in which right-left situations have been deliberately created
and then placed in a conflict mode to bring about a synthesis.
Finally, we will tie these decisions and operations back to the
elite and specifically to The Order.
II. HOW THE DIALECTIC PROCESS WORKS
Throughout the last 200 years, since the rise of Kant in German
philosophy, we can identify two conflicting systems of philosophy
and so opposing ideas of the State, society and culture. In the
U.S., the British Commonwealth and France, philosophy is based on
the individual and the rights of the individual.
Whereas in Germany
from the time of Kant, through Fichte and Hegel up to 1945, the root
philosophy has been universal brotherhood, rejection of
individualism and general opposition to Western classical liberal
thought in almost all its aspects. German idealism, as we noted in
earlier volumes of this series, was the philosophical basis for the
work of Karl Marx and the Left Hegelians as well as Bismarck, Hitler
and the Right Hegelians.
This is the paradox: that Hegel gave a
theoretical basis not only to the most conservative of German
movements, but also to most of the revolutionary movements of the
19th century. Both Marx and Hitler have their philosophical roots in
From the Hegelian system of political thought, alien to most of us
in the West, stem such absurdities as the State seen as the "march
of God through history," that the State is also God, that the only
duty of a citizen is to serve God by serving the State, that the
State is Absolute Reason, that a citizen can only find freedom by
worship and utter obedience to the State. However, we also noted in
How The Order Controls Education that Hegelian absurdities have
thoroughly penetrated the U.S. educational system under pressure
from such organizations as the National Education Association and major
From this system of Hegelian philosophy comes the historical
dialectic, i.e., that all historical events emerge from a conflict
between opposing forces. These emerging events are above and
different from the conflicting events. Any idea or implementation of
an idea may be seen as THESIS. This thesis will encourage emergence
of opposing forces, known as ANTITHESIS. The final outcome will be
neither thesis nor antithesis, but a synthesis of the two forces in
Karl Marx, in Das Kapital, posed capitalism as thesis and communism
as antithesis. What has been completely ignored by historians,
including Marxists, is that any clash between these forces cannot
lead to a society which is either capitalist or communist but must
lead to a society characterized by a synthesis of the two
The clash of opposites must in the Hegelian
system bring about a society neither capitalist nor communist. Moreover, in the Hegelian scheme of events, this new
synthesis will reflect the concept of the State as God and the
individual as totally subordinate to an all powerful State.
then is the function of a Parliament or a Congress for Hegelians?
These institutions are merely to allow individuals to feel that
opinions have some value and to allow a government to take advantage
of whatever wisdom the "peasant" may accidentally demonstrate. As
Hegel puts it:
"By virtue of this participation, subjective liberty
and conceit, with their general opinion, (individuals) can show
themselves palpably efficacious and enjoy the satisfaction of
feeling themselves to count for something."
War, the organized
conflict of nations for Hegelians, is only the visible outcome of
the clash between ideas. As John Dewey, the Hegelian darling of the
modern educational system, puts it:
"War is the most effective preacher of the vanity of all merely
finite interests, it puts an end to that selfish egoism of the
individual by which he would claim his life and his property as his
own or as his family's."
(John Dewey, German Philosophy And
Politics, p. 197)
Of course, this war-promoting Dewey paragraph is conveniently
forgotten by the National Education Association, which is today busy
in the "Peace Movement" - at precisely that time when a "peace"
movement most aids the Hegelian Soviets.
Above all, the Hegelian doctrine is the divine right of States
rather than the divine right of kings. The State for Hegel and
Hegelians is God on earth:
"The march of God in history is the cause
of the existence of states, their foundation is the power of Reason
realizing itself as will. Every state, whatever it be, participates in the divine essence. The State
is not the work of human art, only Reason could produce it."
(Philosophy Of Right)
For Hegel the individual is nothing, the individual has no rights,
morality consists solely in following a leader. For the ambitious
individual the rule is Senator Mansfield's maxim: "To get along you
have to go along."
Compare this to the spirit and letter of the Constitution of the
United States: "We the people" grant the state some powers and
reserve all others to the people. Separation of church and state is
built into the U.S. Constitution, a denial of Hegel's "the State is
God on earth."
Yet, compare this legal requirement to the actions of
The Order in the United States, The Group in England,
in Germany, and the Politburo in Russia. For these elitists the
State is supreme and a self-appointed elite running the State acts
indeed as God on earth.
III. J.P. MORGAN USES THE DIALECTIC PROCESS
The concept of the Hegelian dialectic is obviously beyond the
comprehension of modern textbook writers. No historical or political
theory textbook that we know of discusses the possible use of the
Hegelian dialectic in American politics. Yet its use has been
recorded by Professor Carroll Quigley in Tragedy And Hope, a trade
book based on documents of
the Council on Foreign Relations.
not only describes banker J.P. Morgan's use of the "right" and the
"left" as competitive devices for political manipulation of society,
but adds an eye-opening comment:
"Unfortunately we do not have space here for this great and untold
story, but it must be remembered that what we do say is part of a
much larger picture."
(Tragedy And Hope, p. 945)
This much larger picture is partly revealed in this book. First
let's briefly note how J.P. Morgan used the dialectic process as a
means of political control for financial ends. The only college
attended by Morgan was 2-3 years in the mid-1850s at University of Gottingen, Germany, which was a center of Hegelian activism.
no record that Morgan joined any secret society, no more than the KONKNEIPANTEN, one of the student corps. Yet German Hegelianism is
apparent in J.P. Morgan's approach to political parties - Morgan
used them all.
As Quigley comments:
"The associations between Wall Street and the Left, of which Mike
Straight is a fair example, are really survivals of the associations
between the Morgan Bank and the Left. To Morgan all political
parties were simply organizations to be used, and the firm always
was careful to keep a foot in all camps.
Morgan himself, Dwight
Morrow, and other partners were allied with Republicans; Russell C. Leffingwell was allied with the Democrats; Grayson Murphy was allied
with the extreme Right; and Thomas W. Lamont was allied with the
Left. Like the Morgan interest in libraries, museums, and art, its
inability to distinguish between loyalty to the United States and
loyalty to England, its recognition of the need for social work
among the poor, the multi-partisan political views of the Morgan
firm in domestic politics went back to the original founder of the
firm, George Peabody (1795-1869).
To this same seminal figure may be
attributed the use of tax-exempt foundations for controlling these
activities, as may be observed in many parts of America to this day,
in the use of Peabody foundations to support Peabody libraries and
museums. Unfortunately, we do not have space here for this great and
untold story, but it must be remembered that what we do say is part
of a much larger picture." (Ibid)
Quigley did not know of the link between the Morgan firm, other New
York financial interests and The Order. As we have noted before,
Quigley did publish a valuable expose of the British Establishment
known as "The Group." And we know from personal correspondence that
Quigley suspected more than he published, but identification of an
American elite was not part of Quigley's work.
The names Harriman,
Bush, Acheson, Whitney - even Stimson - do not appear in The Anglo
We can therefore take the above paragraph from Quigley's
Hope and insert identification of The Order. The paragraph then
becomes more revealing. Although Morgan himself was not a member of
The Order, some of his partners were, and after Morgan's death the
firm became Morgan, Stanley & Co. The "Stanley" was Harold Stanley
(The Order 1908).
In Morgan's time the influence of The Order came
through partner Henry P. Davison, whose son H.P. Davison, Jr. was
initiated in 1920. The elder Henry P. Davison brought Thomas Lamont
and Willard Straight into the Morgan firm. These partners were
instrumental in building the left wing of Morgan's dialectic,
including the Communist Party U.S.A. (with Julius Hammer, whose son
is today Chairman of Occidental Petroleum).
Morgan partner Thomas Cochran was initiated in 1904. However, it was
in the network of Morgan dominated and affiliated firms, rather than
in the partnership itself, that one finds members of The Order. In
firms like Guaranty Trust and Bankers Trust, somewhat removed from
the J.P. Morgan financial center, although under Morgan control, we
find concentrations of initiates (as we shall describe below).
practice by The Order of supporting both "right" and "left" persists
down to the present day. We find in 1984, for example, that Averell
Harriman (The Order '13) is elder statesman of the Democratic Party
while George Bush (The Order '49) is a Republican Vice President and
leader of the misnamed "moderate" (actually extremist) wing of the
Republican Party. In the center we have so-called "independent" John
Anderson, who in fact receives heavy financial support from the
IV. THE CREATION OF WAR AND REVOLUTION
This manipulation of "left" and "right on the domestic front is
duplicated in the international field where "left" and "right"
political structures are artificially constructed and collapsed in
the drive for a one-world synthesis.
College textbooks present war and revolution as more or less
accidental results of conflicting forces. The decay of political
negotiation into physical conflict comes about, according to these
books, after valiant efforts to avoid war. Unfortunately, this is
nonsense. War is always a deliberate creative act by individuals.
Western textbooks also have gigantic gaps.
For example, after World
War II the Tribunals set up to investigate Nazi war criminals were
careful to censor any materials recording Western assistance to
Hitler. By the same token, Western textbooks on Soviet economic
development omit any description of the economic and financial aid
given to the 1917 Revolution and subsequent economic development by
Western firms and banks.
Revolution is always recorded as a spontaneous event by the
politically or economically deprived against an autocratic state.
Never in Western textbooks will you find the evidence that
revolutions need finance and the source of the finance in many cases
traces back to Wall Street.
Consequently it can be argued that
our Western history is every bit
as distorted, censored, and largely useless as that of Hitler's
Germany or the Soviet Union or Communist China. No Western
foundation will award grants to investigate such topics, few Western
academics can "survive" by researching such theses and certainly no
major publisher will easily accept manuscripts reflecting such
In fact, there is another largely unrecorded history and it tells a
story quite different than our sanitized textbooks. It tells a story
of the deliberate creation of war, the knowing finance of revolution
to change governments, and the use of conflict to create a New World
In the following Memorandum Number Two
we will describe the operational vehicles used to create two
revolutions and one world conflict. Then, in Memoranda Three and
Four, we will explore thesis and antithesis in one major historical
episode - the development and construction of the Soviet Union
(thesis) and Hitler's Germany (antithesis).
In Memorandum Five we will explore the continuation of this
dialectic conflict into the last few decades, specifically Angola
and China today. We will show that the purpose of The Order is to
create a new synthesis,
a New World Order along Hegelian lines where
the State is the Absolute and the individual can find freedom only
in blind obedience to the State.
Return to Contents
Memorandum Number Two:
Operational Vehicles For Conflict Creation
I. A UNIVERSAL MIND SET
Our first task is to break an almost universally held mind
set, i.e., that communists and elitist capitalists are bitter
enemies. This Marxist axiom is a false statement and for a
century has fooled academics and investigators alike.
illustrate this mind set, let's look at a report on
revolutionaries in the U.S. compiled by the respected Scotland
Yard (London) in 1919. London police investigators were then
tracking the Bolshevik Revolution and attempting to identify its
Western supporters. When it came to men with long beards and
even longer overcoats, most police departments had no problem -
they looked like revolutionaries, therefore, they must be
But when it came to respectable
black-suited bankers, Scotland Yard was unable to rise above its
mind set and recognize that bankers might equally be
revolutionaries. Witness this extract from a Scotland Yard
Intelligence Report. 1
"Martens is very much in the limelight. There appears to be no doubt
about his connection with the Guarantee (sic) Trust Company.
Although it is surprising that so large and influential an
enterprise should have dealings with a Bolshevik concern."
1 A copy is in U.S. State Department Decimal File, Microcopy 316,
Roll 22, Frame 656.
Scotland Yard had picked up an accurate report that the Soviets were
deeply involved with Guaranty Trust of New York, but they couldn't
believe it, and dropped this line of investigation.
Even today the FBI has a similar mind set. For example,
Rockefeller has met regularly with a KGB agent in the United States
- weekly lunch meetings is a close description. Yet the FBI
presumably can't bring itself to investigate David Rockefeller as a
potential Soviet agent, but if Joe Smith of Hoboken, N.J. was
lunching weekly with the KGB, you can be sure the FBI would be on
his tail. And, of course, our domestic
U.S. Marxists find it absolutely inconceivable that a capitalist
would support communism.
Organizations like Scotland Yard and the FBI, and almost all
academics on whom investigators rely for their guidelines, have a
highly important failing: they look at known verifiable historical
facts with a mind set. They convince themselves that they have the
explanation of a problem even before the problem presents itself.
The key to modern history is in these facts: that elitists have
close working relations with both Marxists and Nazis. The only
questions are who and why? The common reaction is to reject these
On the other hand, national security alone demands that we face
these unwelcome relations before any more damage is done to our way
In this memorandum we will present the concept that world history,
certainly since about 1917, reflects deliberately created conflict
with the objective of bringing about a synthesis, a New World Order.
The operation actually began before 1917. In later volumes we will
explore the Spanish-American War and the Anglo-Boer War of 1899. The
first was created by The Order, i.e., the U.S. elite, and the second
by "The Group," i.e., the British elite (with some U.S. assistance).
We might aptly term these the First and Second Hegelian Wars, but
this is another story. In this volume we are limited to the rise of
Hitler in Germany and the rise of the Marxist state in the Soviet
Union. The clash between these two powers or the political systems
they represent was a major source of World War II.
After World War II the world stage was changed. After 1945 it became
the Soviet Union on one side versus the United States on the other.
The first dialectical clash led to the formation of the United
Nations, an elementary step on the road to world government. The
second dialectical clash led to the Trilateral Commission, i.e.,
regional groupings and more subtly to efforts for a merger of the
United States and the Soviet Union.
In Introduction To The Order we-established the existence of a
secret society, The Order. We are now going to demonstrate how The
Order created and developed two global arms needed for Hegelian
Since 1917 the operational vehicles for this global battle
(a) Guaranty Trust Company of
New York, the same firm cited in the 1919 Scotland Yard
(b) Brown Brothers, Harriman, private bankers of New York. Before
1933 Brown Brothers, Harriman consisted of two firms: W.A. Harriman
Company and Brown Brothers. Numerous members of The Order have been
in both firms, but one individual stands out above all others as the
key to the operation of The Order: W. Averell Harriman (The Order '
II. D. W. AVERELL HARRIMAN (THE ORDER'13)
1 Names of Brown Brothers, Harriman partners in 1972 were included in
Introduction To The Order, pages 20-21. About 100 Harriman related
documents from the 1920s may be found in U.S. State Department
Decimal File, Microcopy 316, Roll 138 (861.6364-6461).
The name William Averell Harriman turns up behind world political
scenes more frequently than any other member of The Order. Possibly
as because Harriman is a remarkably active man. Born in 1891,
graduated Yale 1913, Harriman is still newsworthy in the 1980s. In
June 1983 Harriman had a private meeting with Yuri Andropov in
Moscow and in December 1983, at 92, broke his right leg while
swimming in the sea off Barbados. Whatever else we say here about Averell, we must record his truly remarkable energy and longevity.
In official Harriman biographies, however, there is no mention of
The Order, Skull & Bones, or the Russell Trust. Like other initiates
Harriman has carefully expunged membership from the public record.
We have not yet determined if this membership was ever made known to
the FBI for use in background checks needed for government
positions, or maybe no one ever bothered to ask for a background
check on Averell Harriman.
To understand Averell Harriman we need to go back to his father,
Edward H. Harriman, the 19th century "robber baron." Edward
Harriman's biography (E.H. Harriman: A Biography) is as self-serving
as all hired biographies. It was written by George Kennan (published
by Houghton Mifflin in 1922) who was active in the Dean Acheson
State Department. The author of the famous - some say infamous -
National Security Council document 68 was none other than George
Kennan. (See page 175)
Edward Harriman started work at 14 with little education, but
married Mary Averell, daughter of a New York banker and railroad
president. At 22, Harriman bought a seat on the New York Stock
Exchange and got lucky or smart with Union Pacific after the crash
Even the widely accepted Dictionary of American Biography states
that Harriman was subsequently guilty of a combination in restraint
of trade (1904 Northern Securities case), that his dubious financial
activities netted him $60 million in a manner which led to
investigation by the Interstate Commerce Commission. This source
cites Harriman as ..an example of how a road may be drained of its
resources for the benefit of insiders."
Harriman printed securities with a nominal value of $80 million to
expand capitalization of his railroads. On the other hand, Harriman
neglected to acquire improvements and property for more than $18
million. In other words, $60 million of the securities was water,
mostly sold through Kuhn Loeb & Co., his backers and bankers. The
$60 million went into Harriman's pocket.
The 1904 ICC report stated:
"It was admitted by Mr. Harriman that there was about $60 million of
stock and liabilities issued, against which no property had been
acquired and this is undoubtedly an accurate estimate."1
In brief, Mr. Edward H. Harriman was apparently a thief, a crook,
and a felon, because fraudulent conversion of $60 million is a
felony. Harriman stayed out of jail by judicious expenditures to
politicians and political parties. Biographer George Kennan relates
how Harriman responded to President Theodore Roosevelt's 1904 plea
for $250,000 for the Republican National Committee.2
These funds were turned over to the Committee by Harriman's friend
and attorney, Judge Robert Scott Lovett. Lovett was also general
counsel for the Union Pacific Railroad and could be described as
Harriman's bagman. Judge Lovett's son, Robert Abercrombie Lovett
(The Order '18) went to Yale and with the two Harriman boys, Roland
and Averell, was initiated into The Order.
We shall catch up again
with Robert Abercrombie Lovett in the 1950s as Secretary of Defense,
partner in Brown Brothers, Harriman, and a key force to have
President Harry Truman recall General Douglas MacArthur from Korea.
By itself the Lovett family is incidental. When we link it to the
Harriman family we have an example of how these families help each
other along the way for a common objective.
In any event, $250,000 hardly changed Theodore Roosevelt's view of
Harriman. Two years after the gift, Roosevelt wrote Senator Sherman
and described Harriman as a man of "deep seated corruption," an
"undesirable citizen" and "an enemy of the Republic."3
1 Gustavus Myers. History Of The Great American Fortunes (Modern
Library, New York, 1937) p 500.
2 George Kennan. op cit., p 192
3 Augustus Myers, op cit., p. 214.
Another description of Averell Harriman's father is in Concise
Dictionary Of National Biography (page 402) :
dominant, cold and ruthless, he spared neither friend nor foe if
they blocked his plans."
Now we cannot visit the sins of the father onto his sons, but we
should keep this background in mind when we look at the careers of
the Harriman boys, Averell and Roland. At least we have reasons to
probe behind the public relations facade and perhaps suspect the
Superficially, Averell Harriman's life has been quite different than
his fathers. Here's an official summary of Averell Harriman's long
1915 Kitty Lanier Lawrence
1930 Marie Norton Whitney
1971 Pamela Churchill Hayward
For Marie Norton Whitney, see Volume One, p 29 The Order, p. 29.
5 Pamela Hayward was formerly married to Randolph Churchill, thus
linking Harriman to the British establishment.
Groton Prep School, then Yale. Initiated into The Order in 1913
Started with his father's company, Union Pacific Railroad
1917 organized the Merchant Shipbuilding Corporation, sold all
shipping interests in 1925
1917 Director of Guaranty Trust. Family
holdings of about one-third of Guaranty stock were put into a J.P.
Morgan voting trust in 1912
1920 established W.A. Harriman Company, with his brother Roland as
1923 formed Georgian Manganese Company
1933 W.A. Harriman merged with Brown Brothers to become Brown
1934 Special assistant administrator of Roosevelt's National
1941 Minister to Great Britain in charge of Lend Lease for Britain
1941Ambassador to the Soviet Union
1946 Ambassador to Great Britain
1946 Secretary of Commerce
1948 U.S. representative to ECA in Europe
1950 Special Assistant to President Truman
1951 U.S. representative at NATO defense meetings
1951 Director of Mutual Security Agency
1955 Governor of State of New York
1961 Ambassador at Large
1961 Assistant Secretary of State for Far East
1963 Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs
1968 U.S. representative at Paris "peace" talks on Vietnam
1974 Chairman Democratic Party Foreign Policy Task Force
1975 Limited Partner Brown Brothers, Harriman
1983 Visits Yuri Andropov in Moscow
With this lengthy global experience one might suspect that Harriman
has developed a deep knowledge, understanding and perception of the
world. But in fact his writings suggest he is either rather stupid
or one of the most deceptive men ever to walk the face of our earth.
Let's take one example: an article written by Averell Harriman,
published in Look October 3, 1967 and entitled "From Stalin to
Kosygin: the myths and the realities."
Here are two extracts:
(1) "Therefore in the early twenties my firm participated in credits
to finance trade with Russia. We found as others did that the new
government was most meticulous in meeting its financial
In fact, the Soviets expropriated the concessions of the 1920s
including Harriman's, usually without reimbursement. Harriman was
double-crossed by the Soviets in his Georgian manganese concession,
then persuaded to take $3 million in Soviet bonds as compensation.
(See documents printed on pages 154-155).
This Soviet "compensation"
in effect put Harriman in a position of making the first U.S. loan to Russia, so breaching United States
law against such loans.
But this is what Harriman told John B. Stetson, Jr. of the State
"Mr. Harriman said that they expect to
drop about three million dollars which they would charge off to
This, Harriman calls "most meticulous in meeting its
(2) "On the Russian side, one of the most troublesome myths is that
America is run by a 'ruling circle,' made up of Wall Streeters and
industrialists who have an interest in continuing the cold war and the arms race to prop up the 'capitalist' economy. Anybody who knows
American politics knows what nonsense this is."
Russians are largely right on the political aspects of this one. In
making the above statement Harriman not only confirms Russian
paranoia, i.e., that capitalists can't be trusted to tell the truth,
but also deceives the American reading audience in Look that they
do, in fact, have a participation in running political affairs.
Compare this paragraph to this series on The Order and you will see
the devious way the Harriman mind works, perhaps not so different
than Harriman senior.
The previously described official Harriman biography suggests that
Harriman, given his decades on the political inside, must be well
aware of the dependence of the Soviet Union on Western technology:
that the Soviet Union can make no economic progress without Western
enterprise technology. In fact, Stalin himself told Harriman as much
back in 1944.
Here's an extract from a report by Ambassador Harriman
in Moscow to the State Department, dated June 30, 1944:
"Stalin paid tribute to the assistance rendered by the United States
to Soviet industry before and during the war. He said that about
two-thirds of all the large industrial enterprises in the Soviet
Union had been built with United States help or technical
1 Original in U.S. State Department Decimal File 033.1161 Johnston
Eric/6-3044 Telegram June 30. 1944.
Stalin could have added that the other one-third of Soviet industry
had been built by British, German, French, Italian, Finnish, Czech
and Japanese companies.
In brief, Harriman knew first hand back in 1944 at least that the
West had built the Soviet Union. Now examine Harriman's official
biography with its string of appointments relating to. NATO, Mutual
Security Agency, State Department, foreign policy, and so on. In
these posts Harriman actively pushed for a military build-up of the
United States. But if the Soviet Union was seen to be an enemy in
1947, then we had no need to build a massive defense.
What we should have done was cut off technology. There was no Soviet
technology - and HARRIMAN KNEW THERE WAS NO SOVIET TECHNOLOGY.
Furthermore, Harriman has been in the forefront of the cry for "more
trade" with the Soviet Union - and trade is the transfer vehicle for
technology. In other words, Harriman has been pushing two
CONFLICTING POLICIES SIMULTANEOUSLY.
(a) a build-up of Soviet
power by export of our technology
(b) a Western defense against that power
Isn't this the Hegelian dialectic?
Thesis versus antithesis, then
conflict which leads to a new synthesis. In the following memoranda
we will show how Harriman and his fellows in the Brotherhood of
Power went about this program of conflict creation.
Moreover, Harriman is understandably highly sensitive when
challenged on his pious "I am always right about the Soviets"
attitude. One memorable occasion was back in 1971 when author Edward
(Teddy) Weintal was at a dinner party with Harriman when Harriman
trotted out his well worn line:
"I was the first to warn of Soviet
Weintal stopped him cold. In research for a book, Weintal had found
documents incriminating Harriman in the National Archives (similar
to those reproduced later in this book). In particular, Weintal
cited a State Department telegram dated February 12, 1944 from
Harriman to Roosevelt.
"You told Roosevelt that you were convinced that the Soviets did not
want to introduce a Communist government into Poland."
So up jumped 79-year-old Harriman from the dinner table and waved
his fists at 70-year-old Weintal. Shouted Harriman,
"If you print
anything like that in your book, I'll break your jaw."
Reportedly, the agitated host separated the two men, but not before
a Washington Post reporter noted the details (See Washington Post,
March 17, 1971, VIP Column by Maxine Cheshire).
III. THE GUARANTY TRUST COMPANY
Guaranty Trust was founded 1864 in
New York. Over the next 100 years the banking firm expanded rapidly
by absorbing other banks and trust companies; in 1910 it merged
Morton Trust Company, in 1912 the Standard Trust Company, and in
1929 the National Bank of Commerce.
The J.P. Morgan firm has
effectively controlled Guaranty Trust since 1912 when Mrs. Edward
Harriman (mother of Roland and Averell Harriman) sold her block of
8,000 shares of the total outstanding 20,000 shares to J.P. Morgan.
By 1954 Guaranty Trust had become the most important banking
subsidiary of the J.P. Morgan firm and since 1954 the merged firms have been known as Morgan-Guaranty
The original capital for Guaranty Trust came from the Whitney,
Rockefeller, Harriman and Vanderbilt families, all represented in
The Order, and on the Board of Guaranty Trust by family members
throughout the period we are discussing.
Harry Payne Whitney (The Order'94) inherited two Standard Oil
fortunes from the Payne and the Whitney families. H.P. Whitney was a
director of Guaranty Trust, as was his father, William C. Whitney
(The Order '63). Alfred Gwynne Vanderbilt (The Order '99)
represented the Vanderbilt family until he drowned at sea in the
sinking of the Lusitania in 1915. (His sister Gertrude married Harry
Payne Whitney, above).
The power of The Order is reflected in a
bizarre incident as Alfred Gwynne Vanderbilt boarded the Lusitania
in New York on its fateful voyage. A telegram warning Vanderbilt not
to sail was delivered to the Lusitania before it sailed - but never reached Vanderbilt. Consequently,
Vanderbilt went down with the ship.
The Harriman investment in Guaranty Trust has been represented by W.
The Rockefeller investment in Guaranty Trust was represented by
Percy Rockefeller (The Order '00).
In brief, The Order was closely associated with Guaranty Trust and
Morgan-Guaranty long before 1912 when Mrs. Edward Harriman sold her
interest to J.P. Morgan. Averell Harriman remained on the Board of
Guaranty Trust after the transfer. The following members of The
Order have also been officers and directors of Guaranty Trust
Harold Stanley (The Order 1908): Harold Stanley, born 1885, was the
son of William Stanley, an inventor associated with General Electric
Company. Stanley prepared for Yale University at the elitist
Hotchkiss School, Lakeville, Connecticut. An excellent athlete,
Stanley graduated Yale in 1908 and was initiated into The Order.
After Yale, Stanley joined National Bank of Albany and then, between
1913-1915, was with J.G. White (prominent in construction of the
Soviet First Five Year Plan). In 1915 Stanley joined Guaranty Trust
as Vice President. From 1921 to 1928 he was President of Guaranty
Trust and then a partner in the firm of J.P. Morgan, replacing
William Morrow. From 1935 to 1941 he was President of Morgan,
Stanley & Company, then a partner from 1941 to 1955 and a limited
partner after 1956, until his death in 1963.
In brief, a member of The Order was Vice President, then President
of Guaranty Trust Company in the years 1915 to 1928 -the years which
record the Bolshevik Revolution and the rise of Hitler to power in
Joseph R. Swan (The Order '02). The Guaranty Company was a
subsidiary of Guaranty Trust Co. Joseph Rockwell Swan (The Order
'02) was President of the Guaranty Company as well as a director of
Guaranty Trust Company.
Percy Rockefeller (The Order '00). Percy Rockefeller, born 1878, was
the son of William D. Rockefeller (brother of John D. Rockefeller)
and inherited part of the Standard Oil fortune. Percy was a director
of Guaranty Trust in the 1915-1930 period.
How The Order Relates To
Guaranty Trust Company And Brown Brothers,
IV. BROWN BROTHERS, HARRIMAN
The other operational vehicle used by
The Order was the private
banking firm of Brown Brothers, Harriman. Before 1933 W.A. Harriman
Company was the vehicle, and Brown Brothers did not enter the
picture. After 1933, the merged firm continued Harriman Company
In Introduction To The Order we presented details of the merged firm
(pp. 29-33). There is, however, one aspect we want to identify: the
extraordinary role of the Yale Class of '17 in Brown Brothers,
Harriman and the events to be described in Memoranda Three and Four.
The following five members in the class of '17 (only fifteen were
initiated) were involved:
Knight Woolley (The Order '17) was with Guaranty Trust from
1919-1920, Harriman Company from 1927-1931, then Brown Brothers,
Harriman from 1933 to the present time. Woolley was also a director
of the Federal Reserve Bank.
Frank P. Shepard (The Order '17) also joined Guaranty Trust in 1919
and was a Vice President from 1920 to 1934, the period concerned
with development of both Soviet Russia and Hitler's Nazi Party. From
1934 onwards Shepard was with Bankers Trust Company, a member of the
Morgan group of banks.
Ellery Sedgewick James (The Order '17) was a partner in Brown
And finally, two interesting characters:
Edward Roland Noel Harriman
(The Order '17) and
Sheldon Prescott Bush (The Order '17), the
father of President
George Herbert Walker Bush (The Order '49), and
grandfather of President
George Walker Bush (The Order '68).
V. THE ORDER'S "FRONT MAN": MATTHEW C. BRUSH
From World War I until well into the 1930s The Order's "front man"
in both Guaranty Trust and Brown Brothers, Harriman was Matthew C.
Brush was not Yale, nor a member of The Order, but through an
accidental meeting in the 1890s his talents were used by The Order.
Brush became a Knight Templar, a 32nd degree Mason and a Shriner,
but not - so far as we can trace - more closely linked to the power
Brush was born in Stillwater, Minnesota in 1877 and was a graduate
of the Armour Institute of Technology and MIT. By accident his first
job in the 1890s was as a clerk with Franklin MacVeagh & Company of
Chicago. Franklin MacVeagh was a member (The Order '62) and later
Secretary of the Treasury (1909-1913) under President William Taft
(The Order '78).
MacVeagh himself, as distinct from Brush, is a little difficult to
classify. In 1913 MacVeagh left the Treasury and resigned as trustee
of the University of Chicago. By 1919 he had become delinquent in
his fees to Russell Trust. We have a copy of a dunning notice sent
to MacVeagh by Otto Bannard (The Order '76), President of New York
Life and Treasurer for The Order in 1919. The notice asked MacVeagh
to pay up his dues.
While the trail of MacVeagh fades out after 1913, that of Matthew
Brush, his one-time clerk, blossoms forth. After a series of posts
in railroad companies, Brush was made Vice President of American
International Corporation in 1918 and President in 1923. He was also
Chairman of the Equitable Office Building, also known as 120
Broadway, illustrated on page 139.
Moreover, Brush was President of Barnsdall Corporation and Georgian
Manganese Company; the significance of these posts will be seen in
the next memorandum.
The purpose of this memorandum has been to demonstrate control of
two banking houses by members of The Order. Both Guaranty Trust and
Brown Brothers, Harriman can truly be said to have been dominated
and substantially owned by individuals identified as members.
Furthermore, both Guaranty Trust and the original
W.A. Harriman Company were established by members of
Brown Brothers was not absorbed until 1933.
Now, let's examine the evidence that these two banking firms have
been vehicles for creation of war and revolution.
Return to Contents