PART III: Israel and the neocons
Pilgrims, blackmail over Nazi trade, and the birth of Israel
By the 1930s it had become clear that the Arabs, and especially the extremely anti-semitic Ibn Saud, were floating on a sea of oil. FDR, Churchill and even Clement Attlee’s Labour Party had always been rather sympathetic to the Jews, but the oil made the Arabs such an important strategic asset that all these political leaders decided that the Arabs should not be agitated too much over the Jewish-Palestinian question. 
Over the years virtually every member of the Pilgrims Society appears to have favored Arab oil and anti-communism over good relations with Israel. Going through the biographies of Pilgrims you’ll find that many did not like the way the Israelis handled the Palestinian question.  At the same time, in the roughly 1,800 biographies gathered before writing this article there are only one or two past members of the Anti-Defamation League; members of AIPAC, CPMAJO, or any other ultra-radical branch of the radical Israel Lobby are completely absent. This is not particularly surprising for a number of reasons.
Anglo-American high society, represented by the Pilgrims, has historically been quite anti-Semitic. Only a small amount of Jews have been made members of the Pilgrims, and quite possibly only because they couldn’t be ignored. These Jews tended to be members of the major Jewish banking houses and, except maybe for the Rothschilds, were only moderately Zionist at best. These Jews can hardly be compared to today’s radical Zionist lobby.
The Rothschilds were primarily British imperialists who wanted to see Israel as a part of the British Empire and up until the late 1950s James de Rothschild argued for Israel’s incorporation within the British Commonwealth.  The family never supported the anti-communist alliance with the Nazis (generally known as “appeasement”) as envisioned by Chamberlain, the Duke of Windsor clique, and the British aristocrats dominating the Bank of England. This same group of ruthless appeasers severely restricted immigration to British-controlled Palestine, wouldn’t allow Jews to buy land in 95 percent of Palestine, and came up with 1939 White Paper, which called for the assimilation of a relatively small group of Jews into a Palestinian-dominated state. The Rothschilds didn’t support any of these policies, but were caught between the increasingly violent actions of the Zionist resistance against the British and their own government’s policies of handing the Jews over to Hitler and his Arabian allies: the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and Ibn Saud. 
After World War II and the Holocaust, anti-Semitism became very unfashionable. This didn’t mean that the aristocrats of the Pilgrims Society all of sudden became great supporters of the Zionist cause. Most Jews who had survived the death camps remained stuck in the “displaced persons” camps with no place to go. Most of them had absolutely nothing to return to – no home, no possessions, no family; many wanted to emigrate to England, the United States or Palestine. Unfortunately this proved to be very difficult. Britain and the United States continued to enforce their strict pre-World War II immigration laws while the British kept blocking the Jews from entering Palestine. In fact, Britain tried to put a full stop to Jewish immigration into Palestine by secretly encouraging the Arabs to invade the region.  However, because of the long anti-Zionist activities of the British in Palestine, the Zionist participation on the side of the Allies in World War II, and large Jewish communities in the United States, Britain and the USSR, the Zionists had a very well organized intelligence network: the Haganah. Over several years they smuggled a great number of weapons into Palestine, helped many thousands of Jews circumvent the British blockades, thoroughly penetrated the British administration, and ran a successful guerrilla war against the British administration in Palestine. The result was that in the spring of 1947 the British were forced to hand over the question of Palestine’s future to the United Nations. The United States and the Soviet Union wrote a plan which would give both the Palestinians and the Israelis a country of their own. The countries in the United Nations had to vote on the partition plan in late November 1947, and if approved, an independent Israel would be created in May 1948.
Key to the approval of the partition plan was the support of the United States, but even though President Truman was sympathetic to the Jewish problem, he faced serious opposition from his State Department – controlled by Pilgrims – and wasn’t prepared to pressure other countries over the issue.  This changed when American Zionists as Abe Feinberg, a close associate of David Ben-Gurion, informed Truman they would financially back him in the upcoming elections against his main Republican opponent, Thomas Dewey. Dewey, a Pilgrim and friend of the Dulles brothers, was supported by all the big interests, which had grown very tired of FDR’s pro-New Deal and anti-domestic-fascism policies (Truman was FDR’s vice president). After the agreement with the Zionists, Truman successfully pressured countries as France, the Philippines, Haiti and Liberia with economic sanctions and managed to get the partitioning of Palestine approved by a comfortable majority. The Zionists kept their promise and early on raised enough money for Truman to make his crucial coast to coast election campaign trip.  Stephen Smith, a brother-in-law of John F. Kennedy with a lot of experience in the Democratic Party, later stated: “Two million dollars went aboard the Truman train in a paper bag, and that’s what paid for the State of Israel.” 
However, there appears to be more to the story of Zionist activity in the United States at the time Israel was created. Many Israelis, including the senior leadership, had first hand experience with the German concentration camps and had lost their entire families in the Holocaust. This makes it very hard to understand why the Israelis, well known for their penchant for retaliatory operations, never tried to get all the Western industrialists and bankers prosecuted for having worked so closely with the Nazis. Equally puzzling is the fact that the Israelis, apart from the Adolf Einchman affair, never used their excellent intelligence network to track down all the surviving Nazis. U.S. intelligence and General Reinhard Gehlen certainly had no trouble finding and employing a good number of them. Why did the Israelis keep quiet all these years?
The person who might have explained these questions to some extent is John Loftus. The emphasis here is on might, because his career comes with a couple of questions. A look at Loftus’ biography provided with his books will probably satisfy most readers: consultant to CBS’ 60 Minutes program and ABC’s Prime Time and a former prosecutor with the Justice Department’s Nazi hunting unit, who had access to top secret national security archives. Unfortunately, Loftus also is an ultra-radical neoconservative with ties to rather notorious individuals in the CIA, Army Intelligence, Special Forces, British Intelligence, Mossad and Donald Trump administration.  As a result, his books are a combination of anti-communist and anti-Arab propaganda, and at the same time a total whitewash of Israel’s policies and its intelligence associates in the United States. This having been said, Loftus’ claim that James Forrestal, Allen Dulles and Nelson Rockefeller were working with the Nazis before and during World War II is accurate. And in light of this, Loftus has provided a very interesting account of the 1947 United Nations conference on the partitioning of Palestine, which led to the birth of Israel in 1948.
According to Loftus, the Zionist intelligence network had gathered a lot of information on Nelson Rockefeller’s treasonous activities during World War II. But instead of handing this information over to the newspapers or the judges in Nuremberg they confronted Nelson with the information several days before the final vote on the United Nations partition plan. At the time everyone was still very uncertain if the Zionists would be able to gather the needed two-third majority vote. The Zionists decided not only to pressure Truman over this issue, but also his long time representative to Latin America, Nelson Rockefeller. 
According to Loftus’ intelligence sources, Nelson was ultimately able to work out a deal with the Zionists: he would muscle the reluctant South American dictators into supporting the partition plan; in return, the Zionists wouldn’t leak their information to the outside world and wouldn’t hunt down all the Nazis that the bankers of the Eastern Establishment and the intelligence agencies were protecting. Nelson kept his word: within a matter of days Argentina, Colombia and El Salvador switched from a “no” to abstaining to vote; Brazil and Haiti went from a “no” to a “yes”; and Nicaragua, Bolivia and Ecuador went from abstaining to a “yes”. This, in combination with U.S. pressure on the rest of the world, resulted in the partition plan being adopted with a comfortable majority. 
The events described by Loftus in this case could very well have happened. He named Reuven Shiloah as the man who led the blackmail operation.  This would have been an ideal person for this kind of work. Shiloah was David Ben-Gurion’s intelligence chief who attended all the United Nations conferences that were important to Israel. In 1949, he founded the Mossad and was the intelligence agencies’ director from 1950 to 1953. From 1953 until his death in 1959, Shiloah was an ambassador of Israel to the United States where he built contacts with the Jewish community and its increasingly influential Zionist Lobby.  As for Nelson Rockefeller, if the Zionists would have convinced Truman (they did) to pressure countries into supporting the partition plan, it would have made all the sense in the world for Truman to work through Nelson Rockefeller when it came to pressuring South American countries. Nelson had been chairman of the Inter-American Development Commission and Corporation from October 1940 to May 1947, an organization that was established at the outbreak of World War II to reorganize the Latin American economies to compensate for the loss of the European markets. In addition, Nelson had been coordinator of the Office of Inter-American Affairs from 1940 to 1944. This office was responsible for the civilian side of the strategic defense of Latin America. In 1945, Nelson led some of the negotiations with the South American leaders to bring all their countries into the United Nations. FDR and Truman reluctantly allowed even the continent’s most fascist nation – Argentina – to join. Nelson, however, had been all for it from the beginning: “Asked why Argentina was admitted to the United Nations, he [Nelson Rockefeller] replied that it was the most anti-communist state in South America and was needed as a spearhead against Russia.” 
Without a doubt Nelson would have been the person to talk to if anyone wanted anything from Latin American countries. But did the Zionists really blackmail Rockefeller? That question is impossible to answer at this point, but it is certainly possible; maybe even likely. It may also explain in part why the Zionists did so little to expose Nazi collaboration and the post-war fascist undergrounds, which were sponsored by Western intelligence agencies. It was only in the 1980s and early 1990s that intelligence-connected authors as Russ Bellant and John Loftus exposed some of these stories.
State Department vs the CIA and Pentagon
Since World War II the State Department’s monopoly over foreign affairs received significant competition from the CIA and Pentagon. President Truman had to stop General Douglas MacArthur from nuking North Korea and invading China. General Curtis LeMay and his “Project Control” friends tried to initiate nuclear war with the Soviet Union behind the back of Pilgrims Society executive and U.S. president Dwight Eisenhower, who, before leaving office warned the nation about the danger of the “Military-Industrial Complex”. This was a direct reference to the National Military-Industrial Conferences ran by the American Security Council, headed by LeMay and his hawkish military, CIA and FBI colleagues.
Subsequently, President John F. Kennedy barely prevented a full-scale invasion of Cuba as plotted by the CIA and the Joint Chiefs – once again with the vocal input from General Curtis LeMay. He also allowed the assassination of South Vietnamese dictator Ngo Dinh Diem over the objection of the CIA and Joint Chiefs. Also in this matter Kennedy had the support of a number of important Eastern Establishment cabinet officials and outside advisors, including Pilgrims as Robert McNamara and Averell Harriman. Weeks before the death of Kennedy, Vietnam ambassador and Pilgrims Society executive Henry Cabot Lodge played a role in leaking a report to the newspapers that everyone at the State Department and the military was worried that the power of the CIA was getting out of hand. In case of Lodge, they blatantly refused to implement policies he brought from Washington, requiring the intervention of Kennedy himself.
John F. Kennedy is assassinated and subsequently LBJ may have prevented World War III by suppressing rumors that Lee Harvey Oswald acted as a pawn of the Soviet Union and Cuba, a card which elements of the CIA and the Joint Chiefs were ready to play. LBJ – more hawkish and less concerned with public welfare than Kennedy, as well as a close Nelson Rockefeller friend – soon began to micromanage the Vietnam War from the White House together with defense secretary Robert McNamara, refusing almost all input from the much more hawkish Joint Chiefs. In case of LBJ, his strategy may not have been particularly rational or effective, but at the very least least it can be argued that open conflict with China and Russia was prevented. Meanwhile, the CIA was feeling useful with its South-East Asia opium trafficking and project Phoenix death squads.
The struggle between hawkish conservatives and more diplomatic liberals continued over the decades. In some cases, like the conduct of the Vietnam War, this lack of cooperation resulted in extremely ineffective policies that primarily impacted common U.S. citizens instead of elites. In case of the conservatives, they were never really content with a president until Ronald Reagan was elected. Archconservative Barry Goldwater never made it to the White House and Nixon “betrayed” the conservatives when he, David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger initiated diplomatic ties with communist China. Then again, as already mentioned, extreme isolationists as John Birchers and the Council for National Policy also found plenty to complain about with Reagan (his administration was stacked with former CIA chiefs and Eastern Establishmentarians), but for the most part conservatives loved how money for social programs was transferred into huge military projects to fight the communists.
The interventionist-oriented New Right (as compared to the isolationist Old Right and modern Libertarians) was replaced in the late 1970s by the equally interventionist-oriented but much more Israel-friendly neoconservative movement. To a large extent this meant that many new right conservatives simply dropped their association with Nazis and neofascist elements and began to work with the Mossad in covert operations. The Israel Lobby played a key role in this. The U.S. neocon superclass itself was largely born in the 1970s in the office of Senator Henry Jackson, where his staff included future neocon leaders as Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Edward Luttwak, Frank Gaffney, Richard Pipes and Elliot Abrams. Now with the power of a foreign state behind it, a powerful domestic lobby and many extremely wealthy donors from various countries, this new neocon superclass has become a real competitor to the more diplomatic traditional Eastern Establishment. One of the first clear articles on the rise of this new neocon movement was already written in 1977 by Washington Post editor and columnist Robert G. Kaiser, the son of Pilgrims Society member Philip M. Kaiser:
|“RICHARD PERLE is 35 years old and smart – or brilliant, or admirably effective, or an evil genius, depending on who is describing him. Whatever the proper adjectives, Richard Perle has power. He may be one of the dozen most important people in Washington in the area of strategic arms policy. Perle’s line is hard. From his cramped office on Capitol Hill runs what one critical friend calls “a detente-wrecking operation.”…|
“AMONG specialists in the field, Perle is widely thought to have special access to one journalistic outlet, the [Rowland] Evans and [Robert] Novak column. “Jesus,” said one member of Congress, “I can’t tell you the number of things Perle has told me that a few days later showed up in Evans and Novak. That’s happened half a dozen times in the last year.”… Several sources in Congress and the executive branch who regard Perle as an opponent said that he and his allies make masterful use of the Evans and Novak column…
“Former colleagues of Henry Kissinger and several other Ford administration officials suggested that Evans and Novak were – whether wittingly or not – used by a “cabal” involving Perle and two others: John F. Lehman Jr., deputy director of the Arms Control agency during the Ford administration, and Lt. Gen. Edward Rowney, since 1972 the Joint Chief’s representative on the SALT delegation. Lehman and Perle are close personal friends. Several sources spoke darkly of this trio and its purported influence in persistent efforts to undermine Kissinger’s SALT initiatives… according to informed officials, Rumsfeld did intervene with Ford and blocked a Kissinger mission to Moscow that December.” 
Показване на повече
The conflict between State and Defense about foreign policy centers around U.S. policy towards Israel. Right after World War II certain elements in the CIA and the Defense establishment, largely represented by General Walter Bedell Smith, head of the CIA from 1950 to 1953 and a Pilgrim after that, began a covert relationship with the Israelis.  The State Department’s aristocrats, who after the retirement of Bedell Smith also controlled the CIA through Allen Dulles and Wisner, didn’t want that much to do with Israel for a variety of reasons.  This attitude remained on or near the surface for decades to come and reports in the early 1990s describing both the State Department and James Baker’s antagonist relationship with Israel and the Zionist movement should hardly come as a surprise.  As with many others in the Rockefeller-Bechtel-Bush clique, Baker maintained long-standing ties to Saudi Arabia and its oil industry.
As the following report summarizes, it is this Defense Department which increasingly grew to become a major competitor of the State Department.
|“Throughout the first four years of the Bush administration, Powell and the State Department have been viewed with suspicion or outright hostility by right-wing neo-conservative elements entrenched in the civilian leadership of the Pentagon and in Vice President Cheney’s office.|
“Neither Powell nor his chief deputy, Richard Armitage, opposed the Bush administration’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but they were regarded as too closely aligned to the traditional foreign policy methods of American imperialism favored by career State Department and CIA officials, based on utilizing alliance structures like NATO and international institutions like the UN… There were also reported clashes over US policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with Powell resisting the White House inclination to give a blank check to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, in favor of preserving the illusion that Washington could act as a broker between the two sides…
“The removal of Powell and Armitage, while Rumsfeld continues in the Pentagon together with his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, marks a clear victory for the most bellicose faction in the administration. Rice generally sided with Rumsfeld and Cheney in the internecine battles over policy, although she played no independent role and was regarded as hopelessly over her head, even by supporters of the war in Iraq. The New York Times observed Tuesday that what Rice actually thought on key issues was something of a mystery. “Ms. Rice has kept her foreign policy views largely to herself over the last four years,” the newspaper’s front-page article on the nomination said.” 
Показване на повече
In line with the long tradition of the State Department, Rice never completely submitted to the policies of the neoconservatives dominating Washington politics. In June 2008, Rice spoke out forcefully against Israel’s policies on the West Bank, something which other officials in the Bush administration preferred to avoid. 
Pilgrims ties to Christian conservatives and the birth of the neocon ultraright
Although not many, a number of unusually right-wing individuals have appeared in the ranks of the Pilgrims Society over the decades. A number of them are relatively obvious, because they are influential Catholics who belong to the Knights of Malta. Then there’s the occasional Steve Forbes, an Episcopalian from a generational Pilgrims Society family who preaches more along the lines of a strict Catholic or Southern Baptist. As is almost the norm in establishment circles, Forbes is both a Christian conservative and a neocon. As a numbers of readers might be aware, the traditionally anti-Israel Christian conservatives formed an alliance with the pro-Israel neoconservatives back in the late 1970s and early 1980s. There’s a little friction in lower-level John Birch Society conspiracy corners, but that’s about it. This alliance has held surprisingly well over the decades as personified by the Reagan and Bush 43 administrations, and really also the so-called “alt-right” but extremely pro-Israel Trump administration.
Let’s explore these ultraright ties a little here, including the history attached to it. A good start would be John M. Olin, the founder of the John M. Olin Foundation, which, starting in the 1970s, along with the Bradley, Coors, Scaife and Smith Richardson foundations, played a key role in creating the modern neocon movement, including its virulent anti-communism, anti-détente (and thus anti-Kissinger), interventionist policies, alliance with the Christian conservatives, and promotion of laissez-faire economics, all of it leading to the highly irresponsible spending behavior of all Republican-conservative governments we’ve seen since then: Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43 and Trump. Olin and the other foundations accomplished this through the financing of think tanks as the American Enterprise Institute, the Hudson Institute, the Hoover Institution, the Manhattan Institute, and, eventually, the notorious Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
Olin actually was a member of the Pilgrims Society since the 1960s, a membership going back further than the major increase in financing of conservative think tanks that his foundation pioneered in the early 1970s. Apart from that, the president of the Olin Foundation from 1977 until the 1990s was William Simon, the extremely connected conservative Knight of Malta who was a member of the Pilgrims Society in the late 1970s and 1980s. Olin and Simon had become friends after Olin – an ammunition and chlorine manufacturer from Illinois who served as a trustee of Cornell and Johns Hopkins universities – came to live in the Hamptons, New York, where Simon was his neighbor. 
The long-time secretary and treasurer of the Olin Foundation was George J. Gillespie, III, a member of what appears to be a Pilgrims Society-involved family who chaired the Pinkerton Foundation and served as a long-time partner in a the Pilgrims-linked law firm Cravath, Swaine & Moore. He has also been a bridge tournament partner of the Pilgrim Malcolm Forbes, Bear Stearns chair Alan Greenberg, CBS president and CEO Laurance Tisch, and especially Warren Buffett, another liberal establishmentarian.  Gillespie III and Warren Buffett have known each other since at least the early 1970s when both were elected to the board of the Washington Post, a key liberal establishment newspaper with deep ties to the top of the CIA leadership.
Incredibly, Rockefeller family agent, Rockefeller Foundation chair, Ford Foundation chair, CFR chair and long-time Pilgrim John J. McCloy was a trustee of the Olin Foundation from the late 1970s until his death in 1989. Isn’t it fascinating how this chairman of all things Eastern Establishment and “liberal CIA” shows up on the board of a foundation that financed the rise of the ultraright neocon movement and its alliance with the Christian conservatives? Unsurprisingly, his involvement in the Olin Foundation has been an incredibly low-profile affair.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s at the Olin Foundation, McCloy furthermore was flanked by a Pilgrim with the name John W. Hanes, a banker and Olin Industries director. There’s more to Hanes, however. His son, John W. Hanes, Jr., served as an assistant to German high commissioner John McCloy and then, from 1953 to 1957, as secretary of state John Foster Dulles’ special assistant. Hanes, Jr. also served as a CIA officer, a Nature Conservancy board member, a 1001 Club member, a member of a secret UFO investigative committee  and as a Lyndon LaRouche antagonist.  Fascinating, isn’t it?
Speaking of Lyndon LaRouche, one interesting target of LaRouche’s Executive Intelligence Review publication, primarily in the 2005-2006 period, was Pilgrims executive and reorganizer John Train, also the 1987 founder of the Northcote Parkinson Fund (later known as the Train Foundation). Founding treasurer of the fund/foundation was prominent neocon superclass member Midge Decter , the wife of another leading neocon, Norman Podhoretz. Among the financiers of the foundation have been the Olin, Bradley and Templeton foundations.
According to EIR, the first project of the Train Foundation was the financing and otherwise supporting of the book Covert Cadre: Inside the Institute for Policy Studies.  Certainly the fund is credited with support on page V of the book, which was written by Steven Powell and the all-too-well-known ultraright propagandist David Horowitz, with an unpublished manuscript of John Train on IPS-offshoot the Transnational Institute being listed as a source for the book on pages 414-415. A reviewer of the book at the time was leading neocon Joshua Muravchik.  The book accused the Institute for Policy Studies, due to its extensive praise for anti-American communist governments around the world, of being a Soviet front organization. This was an all too common accusation at the time by the ultraright, but what is particularly puzzling in this case is that the Institute for Policy Studies, which is discussed at length in ISGP’s “liberal CIA” article, was created by two aides of John McCloy and McGeorge Bundy and that the institute has been financed with millions upon millions of dollars by foundations as Ford, Rockefeller, Open Society (Soros) and others. Guess this adds even more weight to ISGP’s long-standing charges that the controlled left (such as IPS) has been played off against the controlled right (such as Alex Jones).
The anti-IPS book is also reminiscent of the charge by LaRouche’s Executive Intelligence Review that in 1983 a group of “new left”, ultraright and Zionist journalists/propagandists, along with a number of wealthy men, organized a number of anti-LaRouche meetings at the home of John Train in Manhattan.  While LaRouche is far from a genuine, honest person (just by looking at the anti-global warming propaganda on its website), it does give us yet another indication that the left and the right are controlled and band together against any undesired outsider.
Train has not been the only prominent Pilgrim in the Northcote Parkinson Fund/Train Foundation. His successor as chairman in 2004 was Pilgrims executive Edward J. Streator, a long time U.S. representative to various NATO bodies, a governor of the Ditchley Foundation, and a long time executive member of the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) in London. Pilgrims executive Anne B. Sloane used to be president of the Fund. The Fund’s counsel, John Temple, has served as acting president of the CFR. Then there’s Pilgrims executive John R. Drexel IV, who used to serve as director of sales and marketing at Train, Smith Counsel from 1991 to 1993.
For such an obscure individual and foundation, Train certainly maintained high level connections. In addition, during the 1960s and 1970s, according to Cercle chairman Brian Crozier in his biography Free Agent, Train was a financial advisor to “Rockefeller CIA” asset and Pilgrims Society vice president John Hay Whitney. According to EIR, Train was also close to James Angleton, a top CIA officer who later served as co-chairman of the ultraright American Security Council and also was extremely close to John Fisher, the founder of the ASC. One of these ties ran through Angleton’s Security and Intelligence Fund, which EIR mentions as well as having a) ties to the American Security Council; and b) been involved in the get-LaRouche campaign.  As usual, LaRouche’s EIR group is unusually well informed on conspiracy matters at the highest level. Despite their propaganda, they know their stuff.
Unfortunately, too little information is available on the Fund’s activities and past trustees to draw any further conclusions, apart from the fact that Train appears to have maintained top-level CIA ties, which may explain his involvement in right vs. left bickering activities.
Getting back to the major foundations, the Olin Foundation hasn’t been the only important conservative financier in existence with peculiar Eastern Establishment ties. One of its chief partners has been the Bradley Foundation, which in 1985 all of a sudden became very relevant when its assets jumped from $14 million to $290 million overnight. Apart from their very similar funding activities, the Olin and Bradley foundations were particularly closely linked through Michael Joyce, the executive director of the Olin Foundation from 1979 to 1985 and then the president of the Bradley Foundation from 1985 to 2001. Looking at his other NGO involvement, Joyce, a Knight of Malta, was particularly close to William Simon, a fellow Knight of Malta and premier Olin Foundation chief; CIA asset and neocon godfather Irving Kristol, also a close partner of William Simon; Irving’s equally influential Jewish neocon son Bill Kristol; and the Bush 43 administration, for which, in 2001, Joyce set up the Americans for Community and Faith-Centered Enterprise. Joyce also was a signer of the PNAC statement of principles, along with scores of neocons. 
True, in contrast to the closely-allied Olin Foundation, the Bradley Foundation really didn’t have any Eastern Establishment-linked individuals on the board except, maybe, Michael Joyce. In fact, most names aren’t particularly recognizable. About the most well-known name on the board of the Bradley Foundation was Chicago School economist George J. Stigler, also a co-founder and president of the Mont Pelerin Society. Ironically, Stigler was a mentor to key “new left”, “liberal CIA” asset Greg Palast.
Then there was Richard Mellon Scaife, who used his Allegheny, Carthage, Sarah Scaife and Scaife Family foundations to provide conservative (often CIA-favorite national security) causes with roughly $500 million since the early 1970s. Through his mother, Scaife was part of the Mellon family, a well-known Eastern Establishment family who have been generational members of the Pilgrims Society, with Paul Mellon also appearing in the 1001 Club. The Mellon family was very close to the CIA, including CIA director Richard Helms, but its activities and foundations have mainly been associated with more liberal and non-national security causes. Scaife, however, has always financed the exact opposite causes and, per the Free Agent biography of MI6 propaganda asset and Cercle chairman Brian Crozier, actually was on a CIA referral list for individuals who were denied official CIA funding. As for the Sarah Scaife Foundation, it has always been tightly linked to leaders of the Council for National Policy, Heritage Foundation, and similar groups. However, one long-time trustee, Roger Robinson Jr., used to serve as an assistant to David Rockefeller at Chase Manhattan Bank. As already observed with Le Cercle, this could simply be a case of the Rockefeller clique preferring to keep an eye on their ultraright opposition and nothing more. Other than those just mentioned, the Scaife foundations do not have the same type of direct Eastern Establishment ties as some of the other (neo)conservative foundations.
The H. Smith Richardson Foundation hasn’t been discussed yet. This foundation has been financing similar neocon and Christian conservative think tanks and movements as the Olin, Scaife and Bradley foundations, but in this case going back to even before World War II. H. Smith Richardson’s young son-in-law Eugene W. Stetson, Jr. reportedly helped set up the foundation. Stetson, the son of a Morgan Guaranty Trust chairman, belonged to Skull & Bones and the Pilgrims Society. All information about the foundation until the late 1990s is either extremely obscure or non-existent. Reportedly the foundation has been involved in CIA psychological warfare, brainwashing and education programs since the 1950s, with Prescott Bush having played a role in setting up the foundation and its working relationship with the CIA.  Bush certainly was linked to and possibly financed by the foundation.  The foundation most definitely also had CIA officials overseeing grants and was involved in the training of senior CIA and DOD officials.  Trustees and governors until the mid 1990s are unknown, but at that point governors of the foundation included right-wing Pilgrims Society members Donald Rumsfeld and Zbigniew Brzezinski, in addition to Samuel Huntington and Fred Ikle. The chairman of the post-9/11 neocon movement, James Woolsey, who at one point held a speech for the Pilgrims Society, also joined the foundation’s board of governors with these men. Governors and trustees since then reveal a relatively strong neocon leaning of H. Smith Richardson , as does the early position of Frank Barnett as director of research and vice president of the foundation in the 1955-1962 period. Today Barnett is a veteran of the Center for Security Policy and countless other neocon groups. Then again, he also was a Rhodes scholar who held Rockefeller and Ford fellowships. In that sense, he, similar to the Smith Richardson Foundation and Olin Foundation, holds the middle between the neocons and the right-wing of the Eastern Establishment.
One more minor foundation that shouldn’t be overlooked in regard to the neocon movement, and certainly not the Pilgrims, is the Achelis and Bodman Foundation. The Achelis Foundation was founded in 1940; the Bodman Foundation in 1945. In 2015 the two officially merged, but in reality they were sharing trustees and coordinating grant making for decades at that point. Based on data from 2002 and earlier it was already possible to tell that the ties between the Pilgrims and the Achelis and Bodman Foundation were strong, but a full 2014 list, acquired while writing this chapter, demonstrated that this foundation might well be the closest of all neocon foundations to the Pilgrims Society, including its leadership. A list of ties between key officers and trustees of Achelis and Bodman  and the Pilgrims is quite overwhelming:
- Guy Rutherfurd, the lawyer of the Achelis and Bodman families who forged the tie between the two foundations and kept involved in it for over 50 years, including as chairman and later as honorary chairman, was a grandson of Pilgrims Society member Levi P. Morton.
- Long-time foundation president (to this day) and recent Pilgrim Russell Pennoyer is a grandson of Pilgrims Society member Paul G. Pennoyer and his wife Francis Morgan Pennoyer, the last surviving child of J.P. Morgan, Jr. Paul G. Pennoyer, Jr., Russell’s uncle, has also been a long-time Pilgrims Society member. A 2014 Pilgrims Society membership list lists Russell, along with yet another, younger Paul G. Pennoyer, Jr.
- Key trustee and long-term executive chairman of the foundation, John Irwin III, is the son of former Pilgrims executive John Irwin II and a daughter of IBM founder Thomas Watson, Sr., who, along with at least three other members of his family, also belonged to the Pilgrims Society.
- Key, long-term trustee Walter Curley, Jr. was a Pilgrim, including an executive officer in the final years of his life. He married a granddaughter of the founder of the Mellon fortune (family involved in the Pilgrims) and was a long-term partner in the firm of John Hay Whitney, a long-time Pilgrims vice president, establishmentarian and CIA asset (similar to the Mellons).
- Key, long-term trustee Anthony Drexel Duke was a Pilgrim. The Drexels and Dukes having been some of the more famous Eastern Establishment families around.
- Long-term trustee and vice president Mary S. Phipps is the widow of Howard Phipps, Jr., a long-time Pilgrims Society member who – through foundations and social events – maintained particularly close ties to Brooke Astor and Laurance Rockefeller. Phipps is another well-known Eastern Establishment family name of the 20th century. Howard Phipps actually shows up in the 2014 executive officers list for the U.S. Pilgrims.
- A trustee from the 1980s until the early 2000s was Mary Braga, the window of Virginia sugar baron Ronny/Riondra Braga, whose brother, George, was a Pilgrim in the 1970s and 1980s and whose son, David, was a Pilgrim anno 2014. The sugar assets of the Braga brothers had been confiscated by Fidel Castro. One gets the impression they were made CIA assets as a result, a suspicion only heightened upon seeing that soon-to-be CIA director George H. W. Bush, as well as future Pilgrims executive John Drexel IV, attended the wedding of Ames Braga, another son of Riondra, in 1973. Bush, in fact, escorted the bride.
So here we have seven trustees with combined ties to the Morgan, Mellon, Drexel, Duke, Whitney, Phipps, Watson and Rockefeller families, all families already listed at the beginning of this article as key Eastern Establishment families. Thus, it should be clear: the Achelis and Bodman Foundation is as Eastern Establishment and Pilgrims-connected as the traditional Carnegie, Rockefeller and Ford foundations. In due tradition, the foundation has made grants to groups as the English-Speaking Union, the Cathedral Church of Saint John the Divine, the Rockefeller University for Medical Research, the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, the food bank and more.
However, when it comes to “public policy”, as in political and economic policy, annual grants of the Achelis and Bodman Foundation have been going to conservative economic and neocon foreign policy groups, including the Acton Institute, Atlas Network, Federalist Society, Philanthropy Roundtable, Hudson Institute (Pennoyer also was a trustee here), Manhattan Institute, American Enterprise Institute, Middle East Institute, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, James Woolsey’s Gatestone Institute and also John Train’s earlier-mentioned Northcote Parkinson Fund. 
Now, let’s take a look at some of the more ultraright British Pilgrims. Probably the most notorious one is Lord Alun Chalfont. Since the mid 1960s this person has been coming to Pilgrims Society meetings, in 1975 he officially joined, and from 1979 until about the turn of the century he sat on the executive board. Chalfont is different from most Pilgrims. He has primarily made a name for himself as a hard-right, anti-communist crusader who, on the side apparently, also sat on the boards of Lazards and IBM UK and at one point also was a foreign officer. Among the credits he has listed are “various… intelligence appointments” – not a particularly satisfactory description of his career. We already met Chalfont in ISGP’s Cercle article where he is described as a participant in Le Cercle and a close associate of the Cercle leadership, which, of course, revolved around Otto von Habsburg’s Knights of Malta and Opus Dei network from mainland Europe, MI6 from England and the Heritage Foundation, the CIA’s Ted Shackley clique and the “liberal CIA” Rockefeller group from America. A partial recap of Chalfont’s Cercle bio reads:
|“Minister in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office 1964-1970; Privy Council since 1964; Pilgrims Society executive since 1979; Conservative Monday Club; pro-apartheid; director pro-junta British-Chilean Council; council member of FARI with Cercle members/presidents Brian Crozier, Julian Amery, and Robert Moss, just as the aristocrat Sir Frederic M. Bennett; chair Institute for the Study of Terrorism, a clone of Crozier’s anti-communist Institute for the Study of Conflict; member Committee for a Free Britain, which spent more than Pounds 200,000 on press advertisements attacking Labour during the 1987 election; member Committee for a Free World, an American neo-conservative group; member Media Monitoring Unit, which attempted to “expose” left-wing bias in television news and current affairs programmes… deputy chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority.”|
In the early 1980s, at that point in his mid 60s, Chalfont chaired Zeus Security Consultants, with Major Peter Hamilton, a former Military Intelligence officer, as managing director. The two men used to run anti-communist operations in Malaya and Cyprus. At Zeus they received assignments from British Intelligence which, in turn, they delegated to subcontractors. One of these subcontractors was Sapphire Investigation Bureau Ltd., headed by Barrie Peachman. Peachman was recruited by Hamilton in January 1983 to ascertain the identities of protesters against the Sizewell atomic power station. In turn, Peachman recruited Victor Norris, alias Adrian Hampson, for this job. In the following weeks and months Norris infiltrated the nuclear protesters by setting up dummy action groups which pretended to be friendly to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the protesters at the Sizewell nuclear power plant. At one point Norris wrote to Sapphire he “could put a stop on CND if required.” The infiltrations of Norris were part of a broader operation of Britain’s hard-right against nuclear protesters. Some of these protesters died, like Hilda Murrell and William McRae; others were severely beaten up. After the Sizewell operation was threatened with exposure, Peachman’s behavior became increasingly erratic. He finally committed suicide with a shotgun after repeatedly stating “he’d got his back to wall” and that “people were out to get him.” Another interesting fact is that Norris had been convicted in 1973 for pimping out his daughter to pedophile friends. Norris also was head of the Anglican Satanic Church, and founder of the Nazi Phoenix Society and the 5000 Group.
In 1986 Chalfont and several other directors of Zeus set up Securipol, another security firm with largely the same purpose as Zeus. Securipol shared offices with Ensec Limited, a company specialized in the undersea dumping of nuclear waste. If this isn’t enough, Peter Hamilton was named as a close associate of Stephen Kock, the MI6 and SAS officer who is said to have headed a top secret government assassination team, Group 13 (the son of Pilgrims Society member the 1st Viscount Monckton once acted as Kock’s patron). 
Add to all this Chalfont’s association with the Cercle leadership, his directorship in the neocon Committee for a Free World, him chairing the second (U.S.-U.K.-Israel-coordinated neocon) Jonathan Institute, his involvement in the pro-Pinochet British-Chilean Council and later the neocon Atlantic Initiative, as well as his reported friendship with fellow Pilgrim, superclass member, 9/11 Commission chair, leading neocon and apparent top CIA asset John F. Lehman, and it becomes clear that Chalfont’s reputation as a darkly figure is quite justified.
Among Chalfont’s associates was Sir Frederick Bennett, who is known to have visited a luncheon of the Pilgrims of Great Britain on February 23, 1982. Bennett was among the directors of the Foreign Affairs Research Institute (FARI), together with Chalfont, Brian Crozier (Le Cercle), Julian Amery (Le Cercle) and Robert Moss (Le Cercle). CIA and DIA officers and associates like Richard Mellon Scaife, William Casey (Le Cercle), Ed Feulner (Le Cercle), Ray Cline and General Daniel O. Graham came to the conferences of FARI. Like Chalfont, Bennett was a first rate aristocrat: his mother was a Kleinwort; director Kleinwort Benson Europe; Lloyds underwriter; honorary director of the BCCI in Hong Kong; Privy Council; Bilderberg; owned a Rolls-Royce and four homes, one of them in the Cayman Islands; etc. Bennett’s hard-right and anti-communist convictions are likely to have stemmed from his father, who has already been discussed in this article: Sir Ernest Bennett, once a member of the Anglo-German Fellowship and the secretive pro-Nazi group, the Right Club. All of a sudden, Bennett’s support for Pinochet does not sound that strange at all.
Another rather darkly figure who was invited to the Pilgrims Society in 1995 is Lord William Rees-Mogg. As editor-in-chief of the Times of London from 1967 to 1981 he is an obvious choice for membership, despite his Catholicism. Rees-Mogg is a peculiar individual. Senator John DeCamp, who once investigated the Franklin child abuse affair, had among his friends former CIA director and Cercle member William Colby (whose son, Jonathan, and grandson, Elbridge, joined the Pilgrims). At one point Colby explained a few things about Rees-Mogg to DeCamp:
|“At the time of his death, Bill [Colby] was working with Britain’s Lord William Rees-Mogg… [Rees-Mogg] used to write that in the coming age of society, an elite of 5% of the total population would rule over the other 95% as virtual slaves. But Rees-Mogg is not just nasty– he represents great power… On several occasions, when I saw Bill or spoke with him during the last year of his life, I’d ask him whether I should subscribe to his newsletter [Strategic Investment], or, whether he’d just give me a few copies to look over. He always told me not to waste my money. “Ask me about any situation your interested in, and I’ll give you as thorough a briefing as I possibly can. But don’t believe a word you read in that newsletter I’m writing for.” Strange… Maybe his involvement with Rees-Mogg was more complicated than I ever speculated… And I recall another incident… Together with Rees-Mogg, the most savage press hound attacking Clinton was one Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, a Briton… [he] once called me, urgently demanding a meeting. I had never heard of him before, and so I asked Bill if he had ever heard of this fellow… Bill answered, rather ominously, as I now look back, “His name is Ambrose Evans-Pritchard. And,” he said, “be very careful.”” |
Показване на повече
Rees-Mogg, as a member of the exclusive Other Club since 1973, is a close associate of the leading aristocratic families in Britain, including the Duke of Devonshire (Cavendish), Lord Carrington (Pilgrims president), Lord Rothschild and Prince Charles. Here they dine together with such individuals as Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Sir Edward Heath, and Sir Denis Thatcher (husband of Pilgrims vice president Margaret Thatcher). Lord Richardson of Duntisbourne (J. Henry Schroder; Bank of England; Morgan Stanley; BIS; Chemical Bank; Chase Manhattan; Rolls Royce; Ditchley; Group of Thirty; presided over G-10 meetings; Privy Council; Order of the Garter) and Winston Spencer-Churchill (grandson of the famous PM; son of Pamela Harriman; had an extra-marital affair with the former wife of famous arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi; MP; involved in some projects with Cercle members) are other members of the Other Club, just as Cercle participants Baron Kelvedon, Lord Julian Amery and the 7th Marquess of Salisbury.  The Rothschilds, Cecils, Drummonds, Dukes of Norfolk, Dukes of Devonshire, together with Harry Oppenheimer and Paul Mellon, could also be found in the same room with Rees-Mogg when the even more exclusive Roxburghe Club met. 
An equally peculiar character as Rees-Mogg who joined the British branch of the Pilgrims Society in 1995 is Lord Conrad Black, whom ISGP already compiled a biography on due to his membership in the 1001 Club since at least 1987, along with the Bechtels, Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Prince Bernhard and other European royal houses. He is best known as the chairman and CEO of Hollinger Inc. from 1987 to 2003, a Toronto-based publishing firm that owned newspapers as Britain’s Daily Telegraph, Toronto’s National Post, the Chicago Sun-Times and the Jerusalem Post. Directors and international advisors of Hollinger included Pilgrims Society president Lord Carrington and long-time Pilgrims Sir Henry Keswick, Paul Volcker, Margaret Thatcher, Lord Kenneth Thomson, Henry Kissinger, Raymond Seitz and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Other big names included neocon “prince of darkness” Richard Perle, Sir James Goldsmith, Sir Evelyn de Rothschild, Bilderberg veteran Gianni Agnelli and former Israeli president Chaim Herzog.
Two months after 9/11, Black capitalized on the War on Terror by helping to set up a defense- and Homeland Security-oriented venture capital firm named Trireme Partners LLP. Partners in the firm included Richard Perle, Henry Kissinger and, as an intermediary, controversial Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi. At the same time Black could be found on the advisory board of the CFR, the steering committee of Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission, the IISS, the Peterson Institute, the Americas Society, the New Atlantic Initiative, the Hudson Institute, the Center for the National Interest, and more. He was one of the ultimate insiders and maintained many neocon ties at the highest level. That is, until he went to prison over convictions of fraud and criminal obstruction related to his Hollinger empire, which he was accused of plundering for his own personal benefit. It’s beyond rare to have a person of his standing go to prison, but apparently it does happen.
The board of Hollinger alone makes one wonder about the extent to which the “liberal establishment” really is liberal. Add to this earlier questions about the Olin, Scaife, Smith Richardson, Achelis and Bodman, Train and other foundations, as well as the “joint” membership of a number of key think tanks, and one has to conclude that at the very top liberal and conservative forces coalesce to an uncomfortable extent. This is perfectly represented by David Rockefeller’s circle of friends, employees and close associates. Not only are some Democrat – such as Paul Volcker, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Cyrus Vance – and others Republican – such as Henry Kissinger and George Shultz – but also many have defended Kissinger’s policy of détente while other close friends of Kissinger and Rockefeller, most notably Zbigniew Brzezinski and George Shultz, have worked to put an end to it. For example, Kissinger and Alexander Haig devised and implemented détente in the late 1960s and 1970s. Then, in the late 1970s, the hawkish Brzezinski largely worked to undermine it by coaxing the Soviet Union into invading Afghanistan. Soon after, Shultz became Reagan’s secretary of state, at which point détente was scrapped in its entirety. Within the Reagan administration the otherwise very hawkish Haig was complaining that he was “conspired” against because he worked with Kissinger on the détente policy. Needless, to say, all these individuals have been Pilgrims Society members, executives and vice presidents.
Similarly, Kissinger’s policy of détente was harshly attacked by the neocons, most notably Richard Perle, but also individuals as Norman Podhoretz. Today, certainly since the War on Terror, he considers both good friends.  Leading neocon Donald Rumsfeld is another good example. In the mid 1970s as Ford’s chief of staff and defense secretary, he and Cheney were undermining the détente and other policies of secretary of state Henry Kissinger and vice president Nelson Rockefeller. However, by the mid 1990s Kissinger, Shultz, Rumsfeld, Colin Powell and Lynn Forester de Rothschild were all involved in the Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation of billionaire Ted Forstmann.  A few years later, Rumsfeld and Powell join the neocon Bush administration, which Shultz-protege Condi Rice helped put together and Henry Kissinger will help advise. Similarly, Rumsfeld has been involved in a number of think tanks with his former rival Henry Kissinger over the years.
All of it makes you wonder to what extent voting even matters, especially because Lynn Forester de Rothschild became best of friends with Hillary Clinton, with Kissinger also being close to Clinton. Of course, ISGP already established that Democrat and Republican administrations of the 20th and early 21st century “coincidentally” all involved key administration officials with very close Rockefeller ties. Thus seeing in this chapter that the neocon wing of the establishment does appear to have a degree of long-term Eastern Establishment backing, shouldn’t come as a surprise either. But it remains very, very strange what is going on at the top layer of our western society. It appears we’re dealing with different factions in one establishment that are sorting things out amongst themselves while at the same time employing mindbogglingly complex security operations to keep truly independent presidential candidates from being elected and to keep the public off-balance regarding certain major cross-party, cross-faction conspiracies.
Ultraright anti-Eastern Establishment propaganda
In various parts of this article it is discussed how the John Birch Society and Liberty Lobby – the largely low-level, conspiracy-oriented odd ducklings of the ultraright conservative movement – have largely been responsible for the fuss about the Eastern Establishment, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the United Nations, the British “empire” and their supposed sympathies with “socialism” and even communism. Maybe we should dig a little deeper into that, especially now that we established that the Eastern Establishment itself can be quite right-wing and neocon.
Near the beginning of this article we cited a column written in 1962 which very articulately described the political, business and educational network of the Eastern Establishment. It appeared in a good number of newspapers. To refresh everyone’s memory, here is the excerpt again:
|“There is an establishment in the United States. The word “establishment” is a general term for the power elite in international finance, business, the professions largely from the Northeast, who wield most of the power regardless of who is in the White House.|
“Most people are unaware of the existence of this “legitimate Mafia.” Yet the power of the establishment makes itself felt from the professor who seeks a foundation grant, to the candidate for a cabinet post or State Department job. It affects the nation’s policies in almost every area.
“For example, the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City, subsidized by Rockefeller interests since 1927 boasts a membership of at least 90 per cent establishment figures.” 
Показване на повече
This column was written by Edith Kermit Roosevelt. You are forgiven if you assumed this Edith was a relative of former President Franklin Roosevelt, who has been described in the previous paragraphs as a major adversary of the Eastern Establishment. Edith was a granddaughter of another former U.S. president: Theodore Roosevelt, and this Theodore Roosevelt is not be to be confused with his distant cousin, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Theodore and his son, Jr., were allied with the bankers and industrialist that promoted American fascism. Reading the rest of Edith’s column it immediately becomes clear that she had followed in her family’s footsteps:
|“What is the establishment’s viewpoint? Through the Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations its ideology is constant: That the best way to fight communism is by a One World socialist state governed by “experts” like themselves. The result has been policies which favor the growth of the superstate, gradual surrender of U.S. sovereignty to the United Nations and a steady retreat in the face of Communist aggression.”|
Half of Edith’s family members were high-level CIA officers, the most well-known being Kermit Roosevelt II, a key 1953 coup plotter against Mohammed Mossadeq, the Iranian president who made the mistake of nationalizing the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Even her brother, Archibald Roosevelt, Jr., was a top-level CIA officer who went to work for David Rockefeller. In other words, the Roosevelt family of Edith was as CIA and Eastern Establishment as they came – and these are only a fraction of the ties. A full timeline and more details on Edith’s family can be found in ISGP’s article on Alex Jones, an ultraright,CIA-tied propagandist along John Birch Society and Barry Goldwater lines.
Probably the most interesting aspect of John Birch Society-type propaganda that Edith is describing unusually clear above is that it is largely true. The Morgans and their henchmen really were a dominant influence in American economic and political circles in the early part of the 20th century. The Morgans, Mellons, Rockefellers, Vanderbilts and Andrew Carnegie really were great Anglophiles, this in contrast to the general population which still remembered the wars of independence. These same families really were great supporters of the United Nations and for the most part continue to be so until this day.
This analysis of the Pilgrims Society has demonstrated all these things. Leading Pilgrims have been among the founders and leaders of the Royal Institute for International Affairs, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Atlantic Councils, Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission, the Atlantic Institute of International Affairs, the International Institute of Strategic Studies, the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations, the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Trade and Economic Council, the U.S.-China Business Council, the America-China Society, the Americas Society, the OECD, the Institute for International Economics, Ditchley, Brookings, etc., etc. The absolute core of the globalist movement largely consists of Pilgrims. Examples are the memberships of Lord Roll, Lord Carrington, Lord Kerr, Andrew Carnegie, the Morgans, Warburgs, Rothschilds, Nelson Rockefeller, David Rockefeller, John McCloy, Henry Heinz, Henry Kissinger, George Ball, George Shultz, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Cyrus Vance, Paul Volcker, John Whitehead and many others.The propaganda is true? Quigley’s Round Table
Even the work of Carroll Quigley can be verified to some extent, although this author is of the opinion that Quigley’s work on the Round Table groups could have been much better documented. In fact, his books do not list any sources, greatly undermining their credibility. On the Round Table groups, Quigley wrote:
|“At the risk of some repetition, the story will be summarized here, because the American branch of this organization (sometimes called the “Eastern Establishment”) has played a very significant role in the history of the United States in the last generation.|
“The Round Table Groups were semi-secret discussion and lobbying groups… The original purpose of these groups was to seek to federate the English-speaking world along lines laid down by Cecil Rhodes (1853-1902) and William T. Stead, (1840-1912), and the money for the organizational work came originally from the Rhodes Trust…
“Since 1925 there have been substantial contributions from wealthy individuals and from foundations and firms associated with the international banking fraternity, especially the Carnegie United Kingdom Trust, and other organizations associated with J.P. Morgan, the Rockefeller and Whitney families, and the associates of Lazard Brothers and of Morgan, Grenfell, and Company.
“The chief backbone of this organization grew up along the already existing financial cooperation running from the Morgan Bank in New York to a group of international financiers in London led by Lazard Brothers.
“This group wielded great influence because it controlled the Rhodes Trust, the Beit Trust, The Times of London, The Observer, the influential and highly anonymous quarterly review known as The Round Table (founded in 1910 with money supplied by Sir Abe Bailey and the Rhodes Trust, and with Lothian as editor), and it dominated the Royal Institute of International Affairs, called “Chatham House” (of which Sir Abe Bailey and the Astors were the chief financial supporters, while Lionel Curtis was the actual founder), the Carnegie United Kingdom Trust, and All Souls College, Oxford. …
“[The aim of these international bankers was] nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.” 
Показване на повече
This analysis of the Pilgrims Society has confirmed the existence of a network as described by Quigley. The Rockefeller, Carnegie, Astor, Whitney, Lazard and Morgan interests have all been very influential within the Pilgrims. Even in the 1970s, on the executive board of the Pilgrims of Great Britain were the 2nd Viscount Harcourt, a great-grandson of Junius S. Morgan who headed the British branch of J. P. Morgan & Co., Morgan Grenfell; and the 2nd Lord Kindersley, who had taken over the Lazard bank from his father and Lord Brand in 1953. Although virtually all of the Round Table / Milner Group members described by Quigley have at least visited the Pilgrims Society on one or more occasions, not all were full-fledged members. However, some of the alleged organizers and leaders of the Round Table certainly were members. They include Lord Lothian (d. 1940), the 2nd Viscount Astor (d. 1952), Lord Brand of Lazard (d. 1963), Adam D. Marris of Lazard (d. 1983) and a number of others all listed in appendix A of this article. Lord Alfred Milner is known to have visited the Pilgrims in 1906.
Furthermore, among the Pilgrims can be found a good number of All Souls fellows and Rhodes Scholars, which Quigley attached great value to. A number of officers of the Rhodes Trust have appeared among the membership or the visitors of the Pilgrims Society, while in other cases close relatives were on the board of the Rhodes Trust, including chairmen.
In other words, without going into the specifics of his Round Table network, Quigley’s Anglo-American Establishment certainly did exist and at least to some extent still exists today. It’s actually quite surprising that Quigley never mentioned the Pilgrims Society in his works.The propaganda is true? The Federal Reserve
The founding of the U.S. Federal Reserve System in 1913 is always portrayed as a major banker’s conspiracy by John Birch Society corners, or conspiracy circles in general. Countless books and documentaries have been produced on the creation of the Federal Reserve, the most impressive effort probably being the three-and-a-half hour Money Masters documentary from 1995. Fact is, the creation of the Federal Reserve System can also be traced back to members of the Pilgrims Society, for which ISGP created appendix F.
The conspiracy partly centered around a secret meeting at Jekyll Island in November 1910 in which leading bankers or their representatives worked out the details of setting up a privately-owned central bank in the United States. Three of six participants of the Jekyll Island meeting were (decades-long) Pilgrims: Rockefeller agent Frank Vanderlip, Morgan partner Henry Davison and Paul Warburg.
Furthermore, Abby, the daughter of key Jekyll Island organizer and participant Senator Nelson Aldrich, married Pilgrim John D. Rockefeller, Jr., while Nelson’s son, Winthrop W. Aldrich, became a key figure in the Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan Bank, as well as a Pilgrims executive and vice president. Three other Aldriches have been involved in the Pilgrims Society, but it is very hard to tell to what extent they were relatives of Nelson and Winthrop. Senator Aldrich’s financial advisor, Alfred L. Aiken, also was a member of the Pilgrims. If Senator Aldrich hadn’t been operating from Washington, he almost certainly would have been a member of the Pilgrims Society too.
Then there is congressman Edward B. Vreeland, who is “credited” with having assisted Nelson Aldrich and the bankers in establishing the Federal Reserve. A quick check reveals that Vreeland, who, like Senator Aldrich, was operating from Washington, never was a member of the New York City-based Pilgrims Society. However, his brother, Herbert, who was living and working in New York City, most certainly was. Herbert Harold Vreeland is listed in Pilgrims Society membership lists from at least 1907 until his death in 1945. In other words, like Senator Nelson Aldrich, congressman Edward Vreeland couldn’t be any closer to the Pilgrims Society without actually becoming a listed member.
The Morgan and Rockefeller families, of course, were leading and generational members of the Pilgrims Society. Jacob H. Schiff, often said to have played a role in the creation of the Federal Reserve as an agent of the Rothschilds, was a founding member of the Pilgrims Society. His son, Mortimer L. Schiff, joined the Pilgrims a few years later. Both remained members until their respective deaths in 1920 and 1933. Mortimer Schiff’s son, John M. Schiff, ended up becoming a treasurer and executive member of the Pilgrims. He also remained a Pilgrim until his death in 1989. In the early 1990s, John’s son David T. Schiff joined the Pilgrims Society. Eventually he was made life member and executive officer. To summarize, the Schiff family is about the only one which can compete with the Rockefellers in terms of longest stretch membership in the Pilgrims. The Rothschilds, of course, also have had various members among the Pilgrims over the course of the 20th century, though nothing as consistent as the Rockefellers or Schiffs.
As already established early on in this article, countless chairmen, presidents and governors of the Federal Reserve System have been members of the Pilgrims Society, with the Federal Reserve of New York in particular having been dominated by Pilgrims. Thus, it is safe to say the Federal Reserve falls under the umbrella of the Pilgrims Society, much like Carroll Quigley’s Round Table Network and more tangible groups as Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Royal Institute of International Affairs.
The propaganda is true? Fabians, Wells’ communist “New World Order”, George Orwell and… the Astor clique?
In right-wing circles, including John Birch Society ones, often reference is made to Fabian socialists or Fabians. Today European-style socialism generally means little more than finding the middle ground between employees and employers, this in contrast to communism, which stands for the violent overthrow of the ruling class and instating an utopian society for the working class in which everybody is allotted the same amount of land, money and goods. Fabian socialism is essentially how British socialism, the Labour Party and the so-called “welfare state” began, making it an immediate and obvious target of any right-wing publication. However, Fabian socialism didn’t always stand for negotiations between the classes. It most definitely contained leaders who expressed a deep interest in Soviet-style communism.
An additional reason that the Fabian Society has been a prominent target in John Birch Society circles is due to the fact that David Rockefeller was introduced to their teachings at the London School of Economics and Political Science, an elite university founded by leading Fabian socialists George Bernard Shaw and Sidney and Beatrice Webb. Though, it has to be said, at the same time, and at the same university, Rockefeller was mentored by the much more conservative economist Friedrich von Hayek, whom he took just as much of a liking to. 
Another important factor for the interest in the Fabian Society is because famous well-known author H.G. Wells, who used to write about his favorite version of a socialist “new world order” or “world socialist democracy”, led to the link between socialism, the “new world order”, global government, and really even communism to be easily made. But… how accurate is this notion of Fabians looking to introduce a form of global communism? And how closely is the history of the Fabian Society tied to members of the Pilgrims Society? Wells actually is known to have visited a dinner of the Pilgrims of Great Britain on November 7, 1913 while David Rockefeller was a decades-long member. But maybe there are more ties. Let’s figure it out here.
Readers may have come across the following shortened quote from H.G. Wells, which comes from his 1940 pamphlet The New World Order. It has been used by countless right-wing authors.
|“Countless people … will hate the new world order … and will die protesting against it.”|
Let’s look for the full context of this quote:
|“Even when the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people, from maharajas to millionaires [multi-billionares in today’s money] and from pukkha sahibs to pretty ladies, will hate the new world order, be rendered unhappy by frustration of their passions and ambitions through its advent and will die protesting against it.” |
While the full quote, in which the upper classes instead of the common people clearly become the target, appears to sound a lot less sinister, in the end Wells’ statement can easily be interpreted as a call for a communist dictatorship. Is this what Wells had in mind? His pamphlets The Open Conspiracy: Blueprint for a World Revolution (1928) and The New World Order (1940) come down to the following points:
- All governments and their policies are temporary. They frequently abuse their power. This should be countered. They are not to interfere with the establishing of a “world economic system”.
- All private, local and national ownership of such things as credit, transport, and staple production should be transferred to a “responsible world directorate” serving the common ends of the human race.
- The world directorate controls a world armed force, tries to eradicate disease and looks after population control.
- There should be a “minimum standard of individual freedom and welfare in the world.”
- The personal career should be subordinate to the creation of the world directorate and the general advancement of human knowledge.
- People should be educated that immortality does not lie in our individual selves, but in our race as a whole.
While many of the above points do not sound too bad to the average liberal Democrat, especially not when looking at the time frame, the abolition of private ownership essentially is a call for communism. And with the globalist aspect in mind, it appears Wells and allies most definitely would have loved to use the United Nations as their primary vehicle to implement some kind of heavy-duty global socialist or even communist society.
Wells actually was less radical than some of the other leading Fabian socialists, explaining why he was involved in the group for only such a short period, from 1903 to 1908. Key leaders as the Webb couple and George Bernhard Shaw (1856-1950) were much more outspokenly communist (and fascist). As for a basic history, Shaw became friends with Sidney Webb in 1880, joined the Fabian Society think tank in 1884, wrote the society’s first manifesto that same year, and joined the executive committee in 1885. He brought Sidney Webb, who would marry Beatrice in 1892, to the Fabian Society that same year. For the next few decades, Shaw, Sidney Webb and his wife Beatrice would dominate the society, always scheming to find ways on how to bring the teachings of Karl Marx into mainstream politics and society as a whole. Shaw and Wells first met in 1895.
In 1913 the Webb couple and Shaw founded The New Statesman, a combined political and literary magazine that remains in existence to this day. Due to its strong focus on domestic British politics, globalist-oriented leftism, and apparent lack of unique content, I haven’t really run into any of its articles over the years, with one notable exception: entitled Meet the No Planers: They believe there weren’t any planes on 9/11, just missiles wrapped in holograms, it’s not hard to figure out what this article was about: slandering the 9/11 “truth” movement with controlled opposition assets.
It reminds one of Bertrand Russell, a Fabian Society member and contributor to the New Statesman, who called for civil disobedience in 1961 over America’s nuclear ICBM program and helped set up the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). A few years later, Russell became Britain’s leading skeptic of the Kennedy assassination, parroting the work of CIA asset Mark Lane. Russell and others, including the retired 30-year editor of the New Statesman (1930-1960) and fellow CND and Fabian Society member Kingsley Martin, also became members of the Who Killed Kennedy Committee, founded in June 1964. Fellow committee member Hugh Trevor-Roper had been a co-founder of the CIA’s Congress for Cultural Freedom while a name as Julian Huxley could also be found at the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. None of it sounds particularly independent.
Despite being one of the many opposing the Webbs-Shaw “old gang” and having ridiculed the Webbs in his 1911 satirical book The New Machiavelli, Wells did regularly contribute to The New Statesman. In 1934, right after the Great Depression, he famously interviewed Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin for the magazine. Shaw heavily criticized Wells for the skeptical approach he took during the interview with Stalin. While Wells was equally skeptical of the capitalist system as Stalin, in contrast to Stalin he did not look at human society in terms of rigid “have” and “have nots” class warfare and did believe in the general goodness of humanity. The Webbs and Shaw were far more enthusiastic supporters of Stalinist communism. Shaw in particular grew to be a major supporter of both communist and even fascist dictatorships , breaking with everything socialism is supposed to stand for. Even Beatrice Webb, still a close friend, was puzzled by Shaw’s transformation by 1935. However, according to Bertrand Russell, Beatrice Webb herself also was quite the autocrat and explained that “the essence of Fabianism [is] worship of the State”:
|“I liked [Beatrice Webb] but I disagreed with her about religion, about imperialism, and about the worship of the State. This last was of the essence of Fabianism. It led both the Webbs and also Shaw into what I thought an undue tolerance of Mussolini and Hitler, and ultimately into a rather absurd adulation of [Stalin’s] Soviet Government. …|
“Both [Webbs] were fundamentally undemocratic, and regarded it as the function of a statesman to bamboozle or terrorise the populace. …
“There were people whom the Webbs hated. They hated Wells, both because he offended Mrs Webb’s rigid Victorian morality and because he tried to dethrone Webb from his reign over the Fabian Society.” 
In contrast to the Webbs and Shaw, Wells was an anti-fascist who also never became an apologist for communist dictatorships. He remained prominent in Labour politics over the years and in 1932 – alongside Aldous Huxley (one year after writing Brave New World), Julian Huxley and Bertrand Russell – became one of the founding vice presidents of the Federation of Progressive Society and Individuals (FPSI), a lobby and pressure group to boost overall support of Labour, which had suffered a crushing defeat in the elections of 1931, almost two years after the Great Depression set in. In their magazine ‘Plan’ the FPSI claimed the recent depression had been engineered by the big bankers. Alongside allied groups as the Council for Civil Liberties and the Socialist League, the FPSI also crusaded against what its executives saw was the increased “fascisation” of Britain, sponsored by the big banks, the Rothermere Press and the British Union of Fascists.  Among the material they wrote was the following text. Published in 1934, by now should contain some very recognizable Round Table-linked claims of professor Carroll Quigley:
|“Then came 1931, and there was an operation planned to bring Germany into the dictatorship-world empire scheme. The British monarchy was behind it; others were behind it; people in New York were behind it. Initially, the understanding of the Anglo-American supporters of this fascist project – which was largely based in France, actually, around firms like Lazard Freres and so forth. But the intent of the project was to have the Germans re-arm, and [have them] destroy the Soviet Union. While Germany was embedded in Russia, in the process of trying to […] the Soviet Union, then, the allies – France and Britain – intended to jump on Germany’s rear, and crush Germany, and be rid of the Soviet Union at the same time, and set up world dictatorship.” |
Fabian support and opposition to communism and certainly fascism can get a little confusing, because not all Fabians exactly agreed with the positions of the Webbs or Shaw, the Fabian Society’s most prominent leaders. In addition, the Webbs and Shaw maintained a number of curious, elite ties. Starting in 1926, for example, George Bernard Shaw became a life-long close friend of Nancy Astor and her husband Vincent, also known as the 2nd Viscount Astor. Vincent Astor was a Pilgrims Society member, as were countless of his British and American family members.
Nancy Astor is sometimes described as “anti-fascist”, because she changed her tune at the very last moment, when World War II had already started and she and her “Cliveden Set” was mired in controversy.  That’s not a particularly satisfying interpretation, certainly not with so many Pilgrims around her – or in general – who were interested in building up fascism as a bulwark against communism and socialism. In addition, from correspondences with ambassador Joseph Kennedy (Pilgrims Society) it can be determined that Nancy was staunchly anti-communist, staunchly anti-Catholic and absolutely hated Jews. Because of all that, she also was pro-Nazi. About the only thing she she criticized the Nazis’ on were their views on the position of women in society. 
The “Cliveden Set” was mentioned a minute ago. This network needs a little additional explanation. Vincent and Nancy Astor owned the large Cliveden estate, located several miles west of London, on the Thames river. It was home to the so-called “Cliveden Set”, a group of influential friends that was pursuing a pro-Nazi appeasement policy through conspiracy  which was largely implemented by prime minister Neville Chamberlain. We already discussed Chamberlain’s deep ties to Imperial Chemical Industries in Britain and the Du Pont-General Motors empire in the United States, much of it dominated by Pilgrims Society members. Robert Brand of Lazard, Lord Halifax, and Philip Kerr, the 11th Marquess of Lothian, were key members of Nancy Astor’s Cliveden Set. All three were leading Pilgrims and important pursuers of the appeasement policy with Nazi Germany, alongside Neville Chamberlain. Their idea was to have Hitler crush all forms of socialism and communism, including the Soviet Union itself. Geoffrey Dawson, the long-time editor of The Times was a member of the Cliveden Set. Dawson’s father-in-law, Sir Arthur Lawley, also known as the 6th Lord Wenlock in the final years of his life, was a Pilgrim.
The Cliveden Set and many of its members – including Nancy Astor, Kerr, Brand, Dawson, Lawley and Lionel Curtis – grew out of “Milner’s Kindergarten” , which in turn grew out of the Rhodes secret society. Hence, the title of professor Carroll Quigley’s 1981 book The Anglo-American Establishment – From Rhodes to Cliveden.
Needless to say, the “close friendship” between the anti-communist, pro-Nazi establishmentarian Nancy Astor and the Fabian, Stalinist hardliner George Bernard Shaw has been prefixed with the word “unlikely”. Nancy Astor is the one who began making overtures to Shaw in 1926. Initially it was Shaw’s wealthy wife, Charlotte, who was particularly interested in meeting the Astors, this because she, according to Beatrice Webb, possessed an “inveterate love of all that accompanies wealth and social prestige and [a] dislike of “little people””.  Reportedly Nancy Astor was attracted to Shaw’s unmaterialistic, stubborn and intellectual nature. Over the course of his life, Shaw often literally had to fight the two decades younger Nancy Astor off his back to prevent her from walking in all the time, dragging him to meetings, and, after the death of his wife, from taking care of him. Similar to his wife Charlotte, Astor generally was extremely pushy and domineering. 
We find aspects of “Milner’s Kindergarten” in another clique linked to the Fabians: the Coefficients, a 14-member dining club that existed in the first decade of the 20th century. Members were a mix of Fabians and establishmentarians who endorsed an imperialistic policy and, according to some, a socially progressive agenda at home. Looking at the Stalinist and pro-Hitler inclinations of some of the members, one begins to wonder about that last aspect. Among the members were:
- Sidney and Beatrice Webb, leaders of the Fabian Society, together with George Bernard Shaw;
- H.G. Wells, the moderate Fabian member who was invited to the club by the Webbs;
- Bertrand Russell, another moderate Fabian Society member;
- Lord Edward Grey, of Quigley’s Rhodes Secret Society and the Milner Group;
- Viscount Alfred Milner, of Quigley’s Milner Group;
- Leopold James Maxse, brother of Violet Cecil, who was married to Lord Edward Cecil, the son of the 3rd Marquess, and from 1921 to Lord Milner;
- and Lord Leopold Amery, another member of Quigley’s Round Table.
It appears that H.G. Wells and Bertrand Russell, both brought in by the Webbs, were the only moderate members and Fabians in the Coefficients Club. Wells, of course, soon ridiculed the Webbs as Machiavellian manipulators, referring to the Coefficients Club as “the Pentagram Circle”. Wells’ long-time friend Bertrand Russell, who regarded the Webbs and Shaw as “fundamentally undemocratic” whose Fabianism came down to “worship of the State”, described his experiences in “the Pentagram Circle” as follows:
|“[Despite having been turned] into a Pacifist … I became a member of a small dining club called ‘The Coefficients’, got up by Sidney Webb for the purpose of considering political questions from a more or less Imperialist point of view. It was in this club that I first became acquainted with H.G. Wells, of whom I had never heard until then. His point of view was more sympathetic to me than that of any other member. Most of the members, in fact, shocked me profoundly. I remember Amery’s eyes gleaming with blood-lust at the thought of a war with America… One evening Sir Edward Grey (not then in office) made a speech advocating the policy of [Triple] Entente [the 1907 alliance of Britain, France and Russia against Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire], which had not yet been adopted by the Government. I stated my objections to the policy very forcibly, and pointed out the likelihood of its leading to war, but no one agreed with me, so I resigned from the club. It will be seen that I began my opposition to the first [world] war at the earliest possible moment.” |
Показване на повече
Interestingly, the overlapping Round Table network, the Coefficients Club and Cliveden Set apparently played not unimportant roles in what resulted in World War I and World War II. To top it off, this network was hanging out with three Fabian Society leaders who were unabashed supporters of Stalinist communism and basically any other dictatorial regime.
We know that the Round Table and certainly the Cliveden Set were rather tightly linked to the Pilgrims. But what about the Fabians and the Coefficients Club? Bertrand Russell doesn’t appear to have been involved in the Pilgrims, at least based on the information available at this point, but Lord Grey and Lord Milner most certainly did visit various Pilgrims Society meetings. H.G. Wells visited at least one Pilgrims Society meeting. The Cecils were deeply involved in the Pilgrims over several generations and Lord Leopold Amery was involved in various Pilgrims Society meetings since the 1920s until eventually, in 1947, becoming an official member. The tie might not be super-strong, but it is there.
We also shouldn’t overlook a certain Professor George Catlin, an executive officer of the Fabian Society from 1935 to 1937 who in 1929 helped H.G. Wells set up the short-lived Realist magazine. Aldous Huxley and Julian Huxley were contributors to the magazine. From 1941 until his death in 1979, Catlin, a champion of Anglo-American relations, was a member of the Pilgrims Society. He appears to be among only a tiny handful of Pilgrims Society members with ties to the Fabian Society.
Strange, in some ways the Fabian Society represented an establishment of some sort. It had its own prominent intellectuals, a major magazine, a major university and key connections to the British establishment. Yet, they were anti-establishment socialists and Stalinists.
The story doesn’t fully end here either. An important contributor to the Fabian Society’s The New Statesman magazine and especially the Astor-owned Observer newspaper was George Orwell, author of the world-famous dystopian novel 1984 and coincidentally a French student of Aldous Huxley at one point at Eton College. Wonder where today very common “conspiracy” terms as “Big Brother”, “thoughtcrime”, “thought police” and “doublethink” stem from? Look no further than Orwell’s 1984 novel. Orwell not only was employed by The Observer, he was best friends with David Astor, a son of Nancy Astor, a protege of Cliveden Set members Robert Brand and Lord Lothian, and the editor and effective owner of The Observer from 1950 to 1977. Along with his father, brother Michael, other siblings and Cliveden Set mentors, David was a member of the Pilgrims Society. The relationship between David Astor and George Orwell was so close that in 1949 David was the best man at Orwell’s wedding.  And then we wonder why even today the whole world has heard of men as George Orwell, H.G. Wells, or Aldous Huxley for that matter. With all their establishment ties, they can hardly be considered true pioneers or rebels. As this site as written in increasing frequency, grassroots activism simply doesn’t exist. It’s hardly surprising either to find that Kim Philby was employed by David Astor as Middle East correspondent before his infamous defection to the Soviet Union in 1963.
Believe it or not, David Astor himself actually was anti-big government, very critical of corrupt politicians, and pro-black. Even after his family lost control of The Observer, the newspaper was bought by David Rockefeller friend, Atlantic Richfield oil chief, and 1001 Club member Robert O. Anderson. To this day The Observer and The Guardian, which are owned by the same interests, are listed by ISGP as the top two “liberal CIA” assets in Great Britain.
Speaking of “liberal CIA”, earlier in this article we mentioned the involvement of Alice Astor in the early combined psychedelics-new age disinformation network of the United States, along with Aldous Huxley. Laurance Rockefeller in particular would come to play a leading role in this conspiracy and new age disinformation network, seemingly on behalf of friendly CIA directors as Allen Dulles and Richard Helms. Laurance Rockefeller was best friends with Pilgrims Society member Brooke Astor, as was David Rockefeller. Brooke Astor’s husband was Pilgrims Society member Vincent Astor, the head of the U.S. branch of the Astor family who was of roughly the same age as Waldorf and Nancy Astor. While the latter operated the Cliveden Set network and were courting U.S. communist leaders as George Bernard Shaw, Vincent Astor in the United States, who had the ear of President Roosevelt, was setting up an Eastern Establishment intelligence network through “The Room” and the Walrus Club in New York City. This private network liaised with the British and leading Pilgrims as Nelson Rockefeller, Winthrop Aldrich and David Bruce. It’s basically from here, in the years running up to World War II that we can say with certainty that both the Astor and Rockefeller families maintained top level CIA and probably MI6 ties. It is very clear that this cooperation between establishment families with their wealth and the security services stands at the core of today’s controlled opposition network surrounding conspiracies and the new age.
Despite the fact that H.G. Wells and Bertrand Russell did not see eye-to-eye with Fabian Society leaders George Bernard Shaw and the Webbs, maybe we shouldn’t be naive and assume both individuals operated without the support of the establishment. After all, we already discussed Russell’s involvement in anti-ICBM and Kennedy assassination activism. If he was operating as a totally honest and independent individual in these capacities, he might well be the first and only prominent individual to have do so. Both remind me a lot of today’s “liberal CIA” network.
Friedrich Hayek’s classic work The Road to Serfdom, first published in 1944. Besides promoting a return to a free- market economy, of which many people had become skeptical after the Great Depression of 1930-1933, the book also tried to dispel the popular (and correct) notion that fascism was a capitalist reaction against socialism and that any form of planning or regulation in the post-war economy would only make it more liable to a new dictatorship.
According to Hayek, it actually were communist and socialist theories which led to the rise of fascism. With that, The Road to Serfdom was a book that served the big interests in the post-WWII world which less than a decade before had been sponsoring fascist politicians to suppress increasingly influential labor unions.
Of course, not a word of these practices appeared in Hayek’s book, which is undoubtedly why it was promoted by Reader’s Digest and General Motors, two pre-WWII supporters of American fascism.
Despite his work on Fabian “socialism”, David Rockefeller used to be tutored by Hayek and really liked his ideas (‘Memoirs’, pp. 75-76).
Hayek also inspired the Pilgrim Sir Anthony Fisher, who went on to “litter the world with free-market think-tanks.” Together they visited meetings of the hugely influential Mont Pelerin Society, which Hayek organized in 1947. “Reagonomics” en “Thatcherism” were inspired by Hayek.
Wells’s idea of world social democracy today is largely continued by organizations as the Socialist International, if not the United Nations. I would love to say today’s Socialist International is separate from the Bilderberg or “New World Order” establishment, but it isn’t. I personally became aware of this while putting together ISGP’s 2017 article on the “liberal CIA” pro-Third World immigration network which has been organizing protest after protest in country after country against Donald Trump. Apart from a large number of feminist and pro-immigration groups being financed by key foundations as Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford and Open Society (Soros), and members of Europe’s political parties, the Socialist International network has been very deeply involved in anti-Trump protests and pro-Third World immigration propaganda. I’ve not been able to find any major cash flows moving towards the Socialist International, so it is quite possible that the undermining of this network is the result of large-scale security state infiltration.
Wells-type global socialism has the most in common with today’s “new left” “liberal CIA” movement, which also happens to be super-pro-United Nations, super-pro-human rights, super-pro-Third World immigration, super-“sustainable development”-oriented, and really is totally and completely acting as a controlled opposition network for individuals who have grown tired of the more right-wing traditional neocon and supposedly liberal Eastern Establishment. If the Fabian socialists, that aspect that actually was “socialist”, has been acting in a similar manner is hard to say, but similar to “liberal CIA” kingpins, the Fabian socialists never were part of the core of the Pilgrims Society. That core has been reserved for big bankers, corporate CEO and top politicians. As usual, the only exception to this rule has been the Rockefeller family and some of its closest allies, such as some of the Astors or Rothschilds, most notably Edmund de Rothschild. This clique always had its hands in everything, from pro-big business CIA coups to “new left” globalism involving the United Nations and sustainable development.
By the way, speaking of the term “new world order”: after H.G. Wells’ use of the term in 1940, it was primarily used during the latter stages of the Cold War by a number of politicians to denote a possible future in which the Soviet Union either collapsed or when it would begin to cooperate with the West. President George H. W. Bush, for example, famously used to term on several occasions in this period. Especially in case of Russia permanently aligning itself with the West, this most certainly would mean the birth of a “new world order”-type situation and a major step to global domination, and possibly even global government, by the West. However, if China continues to increase in power, we might well one day see a whole different type of “new world order”.
In other words, the term “new world order” is not necessarily synonymous with global government, as the right always makes it out to be. It’s simply a term used to describe a major shift or major increase in the balance of power on planet Earth. A “new world order” can take all kinds of forms. Yes, with H.G Wells, the term “new world order” most definitely represented global government with communist inclinations, but it is unclear to what extent the core group of the Pilgrims Society is committed to the goal of global government. More on that in the next section.
The propaganda is true? “The globalists”
The most obvious target of the John Birchers and the right have been “the globalists” centering around the Rockefeller family.
World War II was the major turning point in history that prompted a rush towards globalization. Weapons and means of transport had become so advanced that a new war among Western powers would have to be prevented at all costs. Great Britain had to review its centuries-old Balance of Power policy, the Americans realized isolationism wasn’t going to be in their best interest anymore, and on the continent a solution had to be found to the continuous strife between France and Germany over the minerals in the Ruhr area. At the same time the communists still had to be kept at bay in Europe. Members of the Anglo-American Establishment came up with a number of solutions. One of their main assets was the Frenchman Jean Monnet, known today as the “founder of Europe”.
Since the 1920s Monnet had been close to the Lazard Bank of the Lords Kindersley, Lord Brand, Tommy Brand, and Adam Marris. All these men were Pilgrims, except Tommy Brand. Monnet’s firm Monnet, Murnane & Co., which he ran with George Murnane, was briefly under investigation in 1938 for allegedly having laundered Nazi money. This is interesting, because most of Monnet’s associates, included those at the Lazard bank, were closely cooperating with the fascist regimes during this period. After World War II Monnet was among those who advocated European integration. He received the full support of former fascist collaborators as the Lazard bankers, C. Douglas Dillon, the Dulles brothers and John J. McCloy (all Pilgrims). Monnet’s behind-the-scenes efforts were largely responsible for the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community, centered around the mineral wealth of the Ruhr area and the basis for the later European Union; the 1957 Treaty of Rome, which established the European Economic Community; and the founding of the powerful globalist institution, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Monnet’s framework for the European Union had actually been inspired by his old friend Lord Arthur Salter, a prominent fascist appeaser and a long-time member of the Pilgrims Society. 
Monnet’s credentials as an “agent” of the Anglo-American Establishment are impeccable. Next to his friendship to the earlier-mentioned fascist appeasers, his efforts to integrate Europe also received the full support of President Eisenhower, a Pilgrims executive; David K.E. Bruce, a Pilgrims vice president; George Ball, a Pilgrim; John Tuthill, the head of the Atlantic Institute in the 1960s, an institute mainly founded by Pilgrims; the U.S. State Department under Pilgrim John Foster Dulles, and the CIA under Pilgrims executive Allen Dulles. He also worked closely with the Dutch globalist Max Kohnstamm, a private secretary to Queen Wilhelmina of Orange, a frequent Bilderberg visitor, and the initial 1973 European chairman of the Trilateral Commission.
In 1963, Monnet was among the founding board members of the Per Jacobsson Foundation, named after a director the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) during World War II and a managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Among the directors of the Per Jacobsson Foundation in the 1960s to early 1970s have been Viscount Harcourt (Pilgrims executive; IMF; World Bank; chair Morgan Grenfell & Co.), Gabriel Hauge (Pilgrim; chair Manufacturers Hanover Trust; treasurer CFR; Bilderberg steering committee), Herman J. Abs (chair Deutsche Bank), Marinus W. Holtrop (chair BIS and the Nederlandse Bank); Lord Salter (Pilgrim; supposed Round Table member; associated with Oxford and All Souls; Privy Council; League of Nations; inspired Monnet’s structure for the European Union), Lord Cobbeld (Pilgrim; Privy Council; Bank of England), David Rockefeller (Pilgrim; chair Chase Manhattan Bank), Allen Sproul (Pilgrim; New York Fed), Maurice Frère (BIS; Sofina; Banque Nationale de Belgique; family today owns Frère-Bourgeois Group), Albert E. Janssen (chair Société Belge de Banque), Samuel Schweizer (chair Swiss Bank Corporation), and others. Eugene R. Black (Pilgrim; Chase; World Bank; Fed; Brookings; Bilderberg) and Marcus Wallenberg (Bilderberg) were among the chairmen of the foundation. Looking at all these names it’s hard to doubt Monnet’s loyalties.
In 1970, some time after a network had been created which involved the United Nations, the World Bank, the IMF, the OECD, NATO, the European Economic Community, Bilderberg, the Atlantic Institute, and other institutions, a scholar named Zbigniew Brzezinski published a book titled Between to Ages. This book advocated a close political and economic cooperation between the most economically vital regions on the planet: North America, Western Europe and Japan. David Rockefeller read the book and invited Brzezinski to organize a private discussion forum to implement these ideas. This led to the creation of the Trilateral Commission in 1973, in which Pilgrim and former David Rockefeller roommate George S., Franklin, Jr. also was involved. In his book Brzezinski gave a good description of the new, emerging globalist elite:
|“Today we are again witnessing the emergence of transnational elites, but now they are composed of international businessmen, scholars, professional men, and public officials. The ties of these new elites cut across national boundaries, their perspectives are not confined by national traditions, and their interests are more functional than national. These global communities are gaining in strength and as was true in the Middle Ages, it is likely that before long the social elites of most of the more advanced countries will be highly internationalist or globalist in spirit and outlook. The creation of the global information grid, facilitating almost continuous intellectual interaction and the pooling of knowledge, will further enhance the present trend toward international professional elites and toward the emergence of a common scientific language (in effect, the functional equivalent of Latin). This, however, could create a dangerous gap between them and the politically activated masses, whose “nativism”— exploited by more nationalist political leaders—could work against the “cosmopolitan” elites.” |
Показване на повече
Eventually Brzezinski became a member of the Pilgrims Society too, albeit only for a limited number years. Through the Trilateral Commission, Brzezinski’s foreign policy regarding the Soviet Union initially was focused on a shift from containment to détente. But at the time of Jimmy Carter’s election, who ran on a campaign set out by the Trilaterals, a hard-right, intelligence-connected group of politicians and military officials stepped forward to oppose the policies of both containment and détente, and instead proposed an all-out economic and guerrilla war against international communism. This right-wing group, also known as “Team B”, was organized around the Committee on the Present Danger and included both traditional anti-communist hardliners as Paul Nitze and General Richard Stilwell, as well as the upcoming pro-Zionist neoconservatives around Senator Henry Jackson. Without the support of Carter’s secretary of state Cyrus Vance, a Pilgrim who had come from the Rockefeller Foundation, Brzezinski compromised with Team B. Next to his Trilateral “interdependence” approach, he also followed a hardline anti-communist policy in the Middle East, supported the Shah in Iran and lured the Soviet Union into Afghanistan.  It were Brzezinski’s establishment associates, David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger and John J. McCloy, who pushed a reluctant Carter in 1979 to allow the Shah asylum in the United States, a decision which led to the Iranian hostage crisis, an embarrassing rescue mission, and the October Surprise accusations. As a result Carter was out in 1980, but largely behind the scenes Brzezinski continued as one of the most important Eastern Establishment anti-communist crusaders for years, if not decades, to come. 
The main point here is that the globalization process is run by the Anglo-American Establishment – the core of the Pilgrims Society if you will – and many allied liberal-oriented businessmen in North America and Europe. Sometimes one wonders, however, how much members these days are interested in political integration. Political integration of the European Union, for example, has progressed mighty slow, with citizens in many countries still not being able to properly speak English and Third World immigration destroying the integrity of the continent. It appears the primary obsession simply seems to be deregulation, so it becomes easier for banks and multinationals to expand their business, and also to increase the economy of the West as a whole. At the core, throughout the 20th century and early 21st century, there has always been the Rockefeller family, which has been globalist, CIA, anti-communist, and also very much pro-human rights, pro-United Nations, pro-green and “new leftist”. The Pilgrims, as a whole, however, they’re globalist but maybe not a ideologically motivated in creating “world government” and a “new world order” as the right makes them out to be.
The initial purpose of this article was to show whether or not there really existed an Anglo-American Establishment that has been influential on domestic and international politics. Although this is something that has already been established to a large extent by a number of authors, there never was one single society to identify its “members” and link them all together in an easy and convenient way. The advantages of this article over previous writings about the Anglo-American aristocracy include:
- The Pilgrims Society predates the founding of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Royal Institute of International Affairs – two closely-linked think tanks – by almost 20 years, and therefore easily connects J. P. Morgan, Sr. (d. 1913), Andrew Carnegie (d. 1919), and Jacob Schiff (d. 1920) to the same Anglo-American network. Daniel Coit Gilman (d. 1908), who incorporated Skull & Bones into the Russell Trust and founded the Carnegie Institution of Washington with Andrew Carnegie in 1902, is another interesting example.
- This discussion of the Pilgrims Society confirms statements that have been heard since at least the early part of the 20th century that the international bankers in New York have been “in league” with the British aristocracy. The connections between members of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Royal Institute of International Affairs have been there, just as the connections between some of the leading New York families and the British royal family, but the Pilgrims Society makes the whole picture much easier to see. In other words, it will convince more people in a shorter amount of time that there has been such a thing as an Anglo-American aristocracy.
- An analysis of the Pilgrims Society makes it possible to better describe the elitist Anglo-American social network, consisting of the Episcopal and Presbyterian Churches, Templar and Masonic organizations, and a whole range of recreational groups. The Council on Foreign Relations and the Royal Institute of International Affairs (which is changing its elitist image) have only drawn in persons that are influential in foreign policy or benefit in some other way from attending meetings. The majority of U.S. Pilgrims have not been members of the CFR, but their biographies still tell an interesting story. Among the important Pilgrims who have not been CFR members are Hulbert S. Aldrich, the Drexels, Cornelius Vanderbilt III, William Vanderbilt Cecil, William S. Farish III, Walter Cronkite, Donald Elliman (Time) and Thomas A. Murphy (General Electric).
- Even today there are no historical membership lists of the Royal Institute of International Affairs in the public domain. This Pilgrims Society article has circumvented this problem and still makes it possible to identify and link together many historical members of the British establishment.
Warning: Undefined array key "_comment_object_id" in /home/antisyst/public_html/wp-content/plugins/peepso-core/activity/classes/activity.php on line 1506