I am publishing the following list as it has been removed from the net. so many can’t find it anymore. I wonder why???
The Pilgrims Society | Membership list
A study of the Anglo-American Establishment
Pilgrims of Great Britain dinner, January 9, 1951. Logo and flags in background. “There are several curious things about these Pilgrims functions. In the first place there is present at these dinners an array of notables such as it would be difficult to bring together under one roof for any other purpose and by any other society… Among the guests were John D. Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan, Thomas W. Lamont and other members of the House of Morgan… We are entitled to know what the Pilgrim Society is, what it stands for, and who these powerful Pilgrims are that can call out the great to hear a British Ambassador expound to Americans the virtues of a united democratic front.”
– John T. Whiteford asking very reasonable questions in his 1940 pamphlet ‘Sir Uncle Sam: Knight of the British Empire’.
“[The aim of the 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 in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.”
– Professor Carroll Quigley, ‘Tragedy & Hope’, p. 324. Can the Pilgrims, which Quigley never mentioned, verify his story of an Anglo-American Establishment?
Sources for membership identification only appear in the membership list.
Most people have at least vaguely heard of the “Eastern Establishment”. This is a reference to a group of people in the Northeast of the United States which to many appears to wield a disproportionate amount of influence over the nation’s politics. This influence, which goes back even further than the days of John D. Rockefeller, Sr. and J. P. Morgan, Sr. has been illustrated by the fact that a great number of individuals working in the senior positions of government have come from a number of New York-based banks, insurance companies and law firms, only to return to this group of banks and businesses after their public term came to an end. Often these individuals served in more than one administration, and together with a number of other peculiarities – think of controversial policies, suspected cover ups, ignored conflicts of interest, lack of media attention, etc. – some people have become suspicious of what at times appears to be almost like a permanent government. A 1962 newspaper column voiced these suspicions best:
“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.” 
The WASP elite
The origins of the Eastern Establishment is hardly part of accepted, official history. Authors writing about this topic have regularly been criticized; sometimes for seeing things that aren’t there; sometimes for leaving out important aspects and missing the big picture. Some of the reasons that these discussions exist are quite obvious though:
1) there are large political and business interests involved here which like the way their system of private, behind-the-scenes conferences has evolved;
2) there’s a small group of “insiders” and huge group of “outsiders”, and because of their different lives they often are unable to understand, or refuse to understand, the other side.
What sets an elite apart from the regular population is influence: influence in domestic politics and economy, and influence in foreign politics and the world economy. This influence in many cases is hereditary, because within establishment circles it’s as much about who you know as it is about what you know. In the modern age education is crucial, and in case of the Eastern Establishment of the United States, most members send their children to Yale, Harvard, or Princeton to get a law degree or a MBA. Members of the British establishment usually go to Oxford, with Cambridge coming in second. As soon as these young students graduate they are free to join the family bank or some other establishment business. Outsiders can join “the club” by going to the right schools and befriending other members of the establishment.
The Eastern Establishment is a so-called “WASP” establishment – meaning “White Anglo-Saxon Protestant”. The term specifically refers to Americans of British descent, even
though there’s a similar WASP establishment in Great Britain surrounding the royal family, which is closely associated with its American counterpart.
The term WASP when applied to America’s elite is somewhat inadequate. Usually its Anglo-Saxon descent and Protestant values are emphasized, followed by a general description of the historic influence of this group. Whenever the question comes up if this establishment still has great influence today few, if any, scholars come up with clear and definitive answers. Much further than throwing around terms like “Ivy League” and “old boys networks” they usually won’t go.
Now, anno 2008, let’s change this and write down
The London Bush house, built in 1919 with funds provided by U.S. Pilgrim Irving T. Bush. Inscribed above the door is the text, “To the friendship of English Speaking Peoples”. The two men represent the United States and Great Britain, holding a torch to symbolize their everlasting friendship.
a detailed list of characteristics which fully describes the traditional Eastern Establishment (or WASP elite).
It is a social elite centered around a number of universities, a group of banks, insurance companies and law firms, and a group of influential, privately-funded foundations and think tanks.
It is centered in and around New York, even though at any moment a large portion of this group is active within the government and non-government institutions in Washington.
There is a close relationship with the British aristocracy and the British royal family via diplomatic officials, individual contacts, and private clubs.
The dominant religion is Protestant, in particular the Episcopal (Anglican) and Presbyterian churches.
British branches of Freemasonry and Templar orders are popular.
This is the group behind the globalization process and members are generally great supporters of the United Nations and the sustainable development movement.
Catholic and especially Zionist interests are not very much appreciated.
You probably heard of some of these points before and you may or may not agree with them. So how can we prove to you that this list is true? To do that we need to begin our discussion on the Pilgrims Society.
At the turn of 20th century a number of influential persons were interested in bringing the establishments of the United States and Great Britain closer together. The St. George’s
Official Pilgrims logo. “Hic et Ubique” means “here and everywhere”, apparently a reference to the idea that the United States and Great Britain should stand together side by side everywhere. The eagle represents the United States; the lion Great Britain. Society in New York, the American Society in London, and the growing network of Anglo-American League branches in England (founded by a good number of later Pilgrims Society members), were seen as inadequate, so the idea arose to form a new, elitist society with branches in both London and New York. This became the Pilgrims Society, which organized regular meetings in such prestigious hotels as the Victoria, the Waldorf Astoria, the Carlton Ritz, and the Savoy.
The idea of setting up what ultimately became the Pilgrims Society was first discussed by a number of Americans working in London. One of them was Lindsay Russell, a well-connected lawyer from New York, who regularly visited London in these days to set up his law firm Alexander and Colby. It was Russell who got together with General Joseph Wheeler (on a visit in London), General Lord Roberts, and Sir Harry Brittain. Together they organized the original meeting of the Pilgrims of Great
Britain at the Carlton Hotel on July 11, 1902. The meeting was a success and two weeks later Lord Roberts was elected president of the Pilgrims; Lord Grenfell and Admiral Hedworth Lambton became vice presidents. Two other vice presidents were Americans: Senator Chauncey M. Depew (Yale Skull & Bones 1856; lawyer to Cornelius Vanderbilt; member of J.P. Morgan’s elite Corsair Club, together with William Rockefeller) and General Joseph Wheeler. Sir Harry Brittain became secretary and the Archdeacon of London, William MacDonald Sinclair, was elected chairman of the executive committee .
At the July 11 meeting the attendants also discussed their plans of setting up a branch in New York. Lindsay Russell and Chauncey Depew went back to the United States and approached such men as Bishop of New York Henry Codman Potter, J. P. Morgan, Sr., and former U.S. President Grover Cleveland (a good friend of the Morgan family and employed by them since at least the 1880s). Under the leadership of Bishop Potter, the Pilgrims of the United States organized their first formal diner on February 4, 1903. The two societies have been organizing meetings ever since .
The Pilgrims network
Over the years more and more influential persons joined the Pilgrims Society, including virtually all the well known bankers, robber barons and their associates. Going through membership lists of the Pilgrims of the United States you’ll find the following families:
Astor Duke Mellon Stillman
Aldrich (Copeland) Du Pont Meyer Vanderbilt
Belmont Gould Morgan Warburg
Baker Harkness Peabody Watson
Carnegie Harriman Pyne Whitney
Dillon Lamont Reynolds *
Dodge Lodge Rockefeller *
Drexel Loeb Schiff *
Within the ranks of the British Pilgrims one comes across a great many Barons, Viscounts, Earls, Marquisses, and Dukes. Members of the British royal family have been patrons of the Pilgrims Society since its inception and regularly attend meetings. Here also well known banking families as Baring, Hambro, Harcourt, Keswick, Rothschild, Kleinwort, Loeb, and Warburg can be found, just as the heads of Barclays and the British managers of U.S. banks as Chase Manhattan and J. P. Morgan.
At the moment of this writing the membership list compiled by PEHI contains 1496 names, the vast majority of them from the United States (rough estimate: about 82% or 1227). Analyzing the biographies of these members doesn’t just show that the Pilgrims are part of the WASP elite – they are the WASP elite. The following banks, law firms, and insurance companies have been headed by Pilgrims Society members – usually for generations:
American Securities Corp. Federal Reserve Kidder, Peabody and Co. Morgan Joseph & Co. Inc.
Banker’s Trust Fidelity International Trust Kleinwort Benson New York Savings Bank
Bank of England Fifth Avenue Bank Kuhn, Loeb & Co. N.M. Rothschild & Sons
Barclays Bank First Boston Corporation Lazard Oppenheimer & Co.
Barings Bank First National Bank Lehman Brothers Paine, Webber
Blackstone Group US/UK Fourth Nat. Bank of N.Y. Loeb, Rhoades & Co. Rockefeller Center, Inc.
Bowery Savings Bank Goldman Sachs Manufacturers Hanover Rockefeller Family & Ass.
Brown Brothers Harriman Gotham National Bank Marine Midland Salomon Brothers
Bullock Fund Hambro Mellon Bank S.G. Warburg
Chase National Bank Harriman National Bank J. P. Morgan & Co. Shearson Loeb Rhoades
Chase Manhattan US/UK International Banking Corp. J. P. Morgan Chase U.S. Trust Corp. of N.Y.
Chemical Bank Irving Trust Morgan Grenfell (UK) *
Citibank J. G. White & Co. Morgan Guaranty Trust *
Drexel & Co. J. Henry Schroder & Co. Morgan Stanley *
Law firms and insurance companies
Breed, Abbott & Morgan
Carter, Ledyard & Milburn
Cravath, Swaine & Moore
Davis, Polk & Wardwell
Debevoise & Plimpton
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy
Herbert Oppenheimer Nathan & Vandyk
Shearman & Sterling
Sullivan & Cromwell
Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts
Equitable Life Assurance Society
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.
Mutual Life Insurance Life Insurance Co.
Lloyds of London
Royal Globe Insurance Group
Chrysler Forbes * ICI R.J. Reynolds
Corning Glass Works General Electric Int. Nickel Co. of Canada Rio Tinto
De Beers (Anglo-Am Corp) General Motors Jardine Matheson U.S. Steel
Dodge IBM Phelps-Dodge W.R. Grace & Co.
* other media companies not mentioned here
Looking at these tables, it is clear that the major banks of New York and London have been very prominent in the Pilgrims Society, closely followed by a group of influential law firms and insurance companies. A number of corporations have also had a considerable presence in the Pilgrims, comparable to some of the law firms and smaller banks. The most prominent of these might well be IBM, of the Watson family – but the founders and owners of Chrysler, Dodge, Jardine Matheson, W.R. Grace & Co., Reynolds, Corning Glass, and Forbes have all been Pilgrims. A vast range of other corporations have been represented by Pilgrims, but do not appear to have been part of the core of the Anglo-American establishment.
Media (and Operation Mockingbird)
Except for Forbes, we deliberately left out large media companies in this last section, as their presence in the Pilgrims Society and influence on society deserves to be discussed separately.
The New York Times and Time Magazine have been the news publications the most intimately tied to to the Pilgrims of the United States over the years. Since 1896 the New York Times has been owned by the Ochs-Sulzberger family, members of which have been generational members of the Pilgrims since the very beginning. Orvil E. Dryfoos, who married a daughter of Arthur Sulzberger and rose to president of the New York Times in 1957 and publisher in 1961, was another member of the Pilgrims. A number of outside Pilgrims held senior positions in the New York Times too over the years. Among them were John William Harding, George McAneny, Philip Du Val, Cyrus Vance and Charles H. Price II.
Time Magazine was set up by Henry Luce in 1923. Although he himself appears not to have been a Pilgrim, most of his associates were, including some of those who financed the founding of his magazine: J. P. Morgan partners Thomas W. Lamont and Dwight Morrow,
together with the Harriman and Harkness families. Among the Pilgrims that have held senior positions in Time Magazine are Paul Gray Hoffman (OSS-CIA), Philip G. Howlett, William J. Cross, Hedley Donovan, Donald M. Elliman, Jr., George A. Heard, Roy E. Larsen, Samuel W. Meek and Frank Pace, Jr. Henry Luce III became president of the U.S. Pilgrims in 1997.
Another important Pilgrims-affiliated publication used to be the New York Herald Tribune, owned by the Reid family and dissolved in 1966. Whitelaw Reid, Whitelaw Reid II, Ogden Mills Reid, Ogden Rogers Reid and several other family members have all been members of the Pilgrims Society. In 1958, John Hay Whitney, a vice president of the U.S. Pilgrims, took over the newspaper from the Reids.
Although not very prominent within the Pilgrims Society, some of Reader’s Digest most senior and long
Pilgrims-dominated U.S. publications. Some outside media are still very much in line with the Anglo-American Establishment. In case of CNN it seems that billionaire country boy Ted Turner, with his one billion dollar grant to United Nations causes, really wants to be part of an establishment for which he doesn’t have the background.
term managers have been Pilgrims, spanning the period from the 1940s to the 1980s. Among them were William John Cross, C. Robert Devine, Walter Wood Hitesman and Kent Rhodes.
News stations are considerably less prominent in the Pilgrims Society. One of the exceptions has been the Radio Corporation of America (RCA), located in Rockefeller Center and one of he most dominant broadcasting companies from the 1930s to the early 1970s. Morgan banker Owen D. Young founded the RCA in 1919. Young was chairman of General Electric, which took a controlling interest in the RCA. For the next fifty years, until 1970, the company was headed by James G. Harbord, Frank M. Folsom, and David Sarnoff. All these men, including Young, were members of the Pilgrims Society. In 1970, Sarnoff’s son, Robert, took over the chairmanship of the RCA, but couldn’t prevent the company from going into a permanent decline. Robert was ousted in 1975 and in the years after the RCA was taken over by other media conglomerates not particularly tied to the Pilgrims.
The RCA, in cooperation with General Electric and Westinghouse, had formed the NBC in 1926, which became its main broadcasting corporation. By the late 1930s, NBC had become so dominant on the airwaves that the FCC forced it into two companies, one becoming the significantly less influential ABC. At this moment it appears that the succeeding heads of both NBC and ABC weren’t invited to the Pilgrims. Of course, the Pilgrims of the RCA did continue to exert their influence over NBC for many years. One person not mentioned before is John Brademas, one of the directors of the RCA/NBC. Brademas is a perfect example of a WASP elitist. A member of both the American and British Pilgrims, he was a Rhodes Scholar, a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation, on the advisory board of the David Rockefeller Fellowships, a director of the Aspen Institute, a governor of the American Ditchley Foundation, a member of the CFR and a member of the Trilateral Commission. Brademas also served on a number of Carnegie commissions.
The other exception of a broadcasting company that has been represented in the Pilgrims Society is CBS. Over the years several Pilgrims have been directors of this New York-based company, among them Henry Kissinger and Marietta Peabody Tree (vice chair Pilgrims; great-granddaughter of George E. Peabody, the famous Morgan partner). William S. Paley, the founder and continuous owner of CBS until his death in 1990, was a member of the Pilgrims Society. So was “the most trusted man in America”, Walter Cronkite, the well known anchorman for the CBS Evening News from 1962 to 1982.
In the 1970s, after a number of scandals in which the CIA was implicated, several reports emerged about a working relationship between the CIA and a number of major media outlets. One of them was the 1979 book ‘Katherine the Great’ by investigative author
Walter Cronkite, “the most trusted man in America” – a Pilgrim, together with his main employer, William Paley. Deborah Davis, who had been interviewing people in Washington for three years. She described the Washington Post’s relationship with the CIA and how Watergate might not have been an accidental discovery. It even gave a name to the CIA’s effort to establish contacts with the major media: Operation Mockingbird. Unfortunately virtually no one was able to read the book at the time, as it was immediately forced off the market, only to be republished in 1991. About Paley and Cronkite at CBS, Davis wrote:
“Paley’s own friendship with Allen Dulles is now known to have been one of the most influential and significant in the communications industry. He provided cover for CIA agents, supplied out-takes of news film, permitted the
debriefing of reporters, and in many ways set the standard for cooperation between the CIA and the major broadcast companies which lasted until the mid-1970s… The [Washington] post men continued to see Paley and Cronkite every Christmas at a dinner given by Allen Dulles at a private club called the Alibi… membership is limited to men in or close to intelligence and is by invitation only.” 
Like Paley and Cronkite, Allen Dulles, head of the CIA from 1953 to 1961, could be found at Pilgrims gatherings in New York. The Alibi Club, on the other hand, was part of the “Georgetown Set” in Washington, D.C., an elite, liberal social group with strong anti-communist feelings and close connections to the New York WASP establishment. Members of the Georgetown Set included many senior CIA officers: Frank Wisner, Allen Dulles, James Angleton, Cord Meyer, Richard Bissell, and others. A few newspaper men like Washington Post owner Philip Graham and journalist Joseph Alsop — and apparently Walter Cronkite — were also part of this group. 
Davis and investigative reporters like Carl Bernstein have mentioned the names of important newspaper men who cooperated with the CIA. The CIA rated newspaper men among the best spies; they could go almost anywhere and ask questions without raising suspicions. At the same time newspaper men could be used to disseminate anti-communist propaganda, something which the major media outlets were only too happy to support the CIA with. As Newsweek’s foreign editor stated: “The informal relationship was there. Why have anybody sign anything? What we knew we told them [the CIA] and the State Department…. When I went to Washington, I would talk to Foster or Allen Dulles about what was going on. … We thought it was admirable at the time. We were all on the same side.”  All this makes a lot of sense, of course. The only problem here is that if all these media people are so cozy with their CIA and State Department friends, who is going to keep these people in line? Apparently no one, hence the long list of conspiracies in American and world history which the major media outlets prefer not to investigate. Bernstein wrote:
“Among the executives who lent their cooperation to the Agency were William Paley of the Columbia Broadcasting System, Henry Luce of Time Inc., Arthur Hays Sulzberger of the New York Times, Barry Bingham Sr. of the Louisville Courier‑Journal, and James Copley of the Copley News Service. Other organizations which cooperated with the CIA include the American Broadcasting Company [ABC], the National Broadcasting Company [NBC], the Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps‑Howard, Newsweek magazine, the Mutual Broadcasting System, the Miami Herald and the old Saturday Evening Post and New York Herald‑Tribune… By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with the New York Times, CBS and Time Inc… When Newsweek was purchased by the Washington Post Company, publisher Philip L. Graham was informed by Agency officials that the CIA occasionally used the magazine for cover purposes, according to CIA sources.” 
It’s interesting to note that many of these media owners have appeared in the membership lists of the Pilgrims Society. In addition to the earlier-mentioned owners of the New York Times, Time Magazine, the New York Herald Tribune, RCA/NBC, and CBS who were involved with this prestigious Anglo-American society, Barry Bingham, Sr. of the Louisville CourierJournal, Jack R. Howard of Scripps-Howard, and the Muir family of Newsweek were also Pilgrims.
This last publication, Newsweek, from 1937 to 1961 was dominated by Pilgrims Society members. Besides the Muir influence, Newsweek was owned by the Astor Foundation, named after a family with whole generations of members in both the British as the American Pilgrims. Among the directors of the Astor Foundation also was Gates W. McGarrah , a first rate example of Pilgrims influence. McGarrah had been chairman of the Rockefellers’ Chase National Bank, a U.S. member of the General Council of the German Reichsbank, chairman of the New York Federal Reserve, and the first president of the Bank for International Settlements. He also was a grandfather of CIA director Richard Helms.
In 1961, Newsweek was taken over by the Washington Post, the establishment newspaper from Washington, D.C. It seems the only reason no Washington Post men can be found among the U.S. Pilgrims is because the society is focused primarily on New York high society. There had been plans in the early years to open other Pilgrims clubs in cities as Washington and Paris, but these ideas never manifested . Interestingly, once considered one of the most “reliable” Mockingbird newspapers, in 1992 the Washington Post revealed to its readers the contents of an internal CIA memorandum, written the year before. In part it read:
“A. Media. 1) Current program: a) PAO [CIA’s Public Affairs Office] now has relationships with reporters from every major wire service, newspaper, news weekly, and television network in the nation. This has helped us turn some intelligence failure stories into intelligence success stories, and it has contributed to the accuracy of countless others. In many instances, we have persuaded reporters to postpone, change, hold, or even scrap stories that could have adversely affected national security interests or jeopardized sources and methods.” 
In his 1977 Rolling Stone article, Bernstein mentioned one British-based news agency (with an important New York department) that has been significantly influenced by Pilgrims: Reuters. Among the Pilgrims who have held senior positions in Reuters are Sir Christopher Chancellor, general manager from 1944 to 1959; Lord William Barnetson, chairman from 1968 to 1979; Sir Denis Hamilton, chairman from 1979 to 1985; and directors Lord Thomson of Fleet and Sir David Walker. Information on British Pilgrims is still quite scarce compared to its American counterpart, so this list of senior executives will undoubtedly grow as more historical members become known.
Among the British news outlets that have been influenced by Pilgrims are the The Observer, The Financial Times, The Economist, and especially The Times and the Commonwealth
Press Union. The press baron Lord Beaverbrook, who owned the widely circulated Daily Express, is known to have visited the Pilgrims at least once in 1941, but is not very likely to have been a member of the Pilgrims as he was not particularly interested in an Anglo-American partnership. Pilgrims have also headed the world famous Encyclopedia Britannica. Examples are Senator William Benton, Philip M. Kaiser and Elmo Roper.
Britain appears to have had some sort of Mockingbird program similar to the United States. In 1994 Private Eye magazine reported how in 1976 John Snow, a well known newscaster, had been
British media influenced by Pilgrims.
approached by a representative of British intelligence. Snow was asked if he would provide the security services with information on the political activities of his colleagues. His salary of 3,600 pound sterling would be matched and there wouldn’t be any problems with Inland Revenue. Snow refused, but Private Eye suspected that most large newspapers and media stations employed persons who had been more susceptible to this kind of approach. The magazine also wondered aloud if a recent story about the Guardian’s owner, Richard Gott, falsely tying him to the KGB, had been written by journalists on the payroll of British Intelligence. At the time Gott’s newspaper was digging into the affairs of Jonathan Aitken, a person with numerous ties to hard right national and international intelligence people. 
Additionally, in 1995 a person named Gerald James published his rather controversial book ‘In the Public Interest’. James had been a banker at Barings Brothers (a Pilgrims bank) and a member of the aristocratic Monday Club. He knew many people in intelligence, including the former deputy head of MI6, George Kennedy Young (who became a banker at Kleinwort). James was also chairman of the arms company Astra Holdings. In his biography/expose James wrote how a cabal of City bankers and intelligence men were running the major illegal arms deals, had infiltrated and corrupted smaller companies, and collapsed a number of them after fearing exposure in the wake of the Iraqgate scandal. James’s Astra Holdings had been among these “front companies” which had been collapsed, prompting James to write a book in an effort to clear his name. This turned out to be not entirely without risk: journalists he talked to were intimidated and several important witnesses died under suspicious circumstances. Relevant here is page 138 of his book, in which James describes his experiences with the British media:
“I have been involved with a number of journalists in researching this story [arms-to-Iraq affair]. At any one time there might be as many as half a dozen following up this or that line of inquiry and we keep constantly in touch by telephone. It is to our mutual benefit, except that the relationship, which has now been going on for for nearly five years, has frequently been marked by sudden changes of policy by newspaper editors or the unexplained removal of a journalist from the case or even from the paper (sometimes to a more exalted position on another where the arms-to-Iraq inquiry is not part of the brief.)… It never really surprised me until I was amazed to receive, from one of my other sources, a list of journalists with affiliations to MI5, on which were posted some of my own contacts in the press, indeed some who had at the beginning made something of a name for themselves on the back of the arms-to-Iraq affair.” 
British Pilgrims can hardly be tied to this British “Mockingbird” program, probably because there’s too little information available on the collusion between British intelligence and the press. The exception might be some of the more reactionary aristocrats in the British Pilgrims, like Sir Frederick Bennett, Lord Chalfont, Lord William Rees-Mogg and their ally in the United States, John Train, though a discussion of these people will have to wait a few paragraphs.
Education is the key to success, and this is no different for Pilgrims. The majority of U.S. Pilgrims have studied at Harvard, Princeton or Yale and majored in either law or economics – if not both. It might not be a surprise then that at any time the boards of these three universities are filled with Pilgrims Society members. There are a few other universities from which Pilgrims have graduated. They include New York University, Columbia University, Dartmouth and a few prestigious European universities. MIT is popular among the small number of scientists that have joined the Pilgrims. Additionally, a good number of Pilgrims have been on the board of the American Academy in Rome, a New York-based school for artists. This is not a mainstay of the average Pilgrims education, however. It is more a reflection of the Pilgrims influence on aspects of New York social life.
In England things are even simpler: the vast majority of future Pilgrims go to Oxford and to a lesser extent, Cambridge – or they come to the United States to study at Harvard, Princeton or Yale.
Cultural, scientific and revolutionary societies
Next to the Pilgrims influence over the major East Coast universities, the Pilgrims are also involved in a wide range of cultural and educational institutes in New York. They include
the Museum of Modern Arts, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Royal Society of Art, the American Museum of Natural History, the New York Zoological Society (renamed Wildlife Conservation Society), the National Institute of Social Sciences, the Smithsonian, the New York Academy of Sciences, the American Philosophical Society, the New York Public Library, and the Pierpont Morgan Library.
Many American Pilgrims are members of societies commemorating the revolutionary wars and the founding fathers, and since membership is usually based on achievements of ancestors, genealogical societies are not far behind. The Society of the Cincinnati is extremely popular among Pilgrims; so is the Society of Colonial Wars or the Sons of the American Revolution. The Pilgrims headquarter in New York is actually home to a whole range of societies, even though the sign at
October 26, 2007, Pilgrims headquarters. Entrance behind cars on the right.
the door only reads “New York Genealogical and Biographical Society”, which is generally also headed by a Pilgrim. Following is a list of all the societies at 122 East 58th Street: 
Pilgrims of the United States Holland Society of New York
Daughters of the Cincinnati New York Genealogical Society
Huguenot Society of America Society of Colonial Wars
Military Order of Foreign Wars New York Genealogical & Biographical Library
New England Society in New York Society of Mayflower Descendants
St. Nicholas Society *
Ever since the 16th century reformation movement began, the countries of Europe have mainly been divided between Catholicism and different branches of Protestantism. In Great Britain the Protestant branch became known as the Anglican Church. The church came under the patronage of successive Protestant royal families, a tradition which was interrupted now and then, but managed to survive until the present day. Since the British aristocracy to a large extent still is a “cradle to grave dependence on and relationship with the monarchy”, as Lord Weidenfeld – a Pilgrim – put it , it shouldn’t come as a surprise that members of the British royal family are patrons of the Pilgrims of Great Britain while most of these Pilgrims belong to the Anglican Church.
At the time of the American Revolution and the wars against the British Empire, the Anglican Church in the United States was separated from its British counterpart, forming the Episcopal Church. This change had been necessary, as all the Anglican clergy had to swear allegiance to the British monarch. The Episcopal Church did retain its classical Anglican theology.
The ranks of the Pilgrims are filled with members of the Episcopal Church, among them the Morgans and Vanderbilts. Neil Vanderbilt once gave a brief description of these two
families’ weekly Sunday visits to St. Thomas’s, the Episcopal church at Fifth Avenue, New York:
“Father [Cornelius Vanderbilt III, a Pilgrims executive] had business friends whom Mother did not invite to parties at the house–at least, not until she found they were accepted, as sometimes happened, by people she liked in England. Then there were people who liked Mother but not Father. One of these was J. P. Morgan the elder [a Pilgrim]… At St. Thomas’s on Sunday, when the Morgan car drove up behind ours–their footmen in dark blue, ours in maroon–Mr. Morgan would call Mother by her first name but hardly speak to Father.” 
Although the Episcopal Church of the United States officially is independent from the Anglican Church and the British Royal family, this shouldn’t be taken too strictly. There has been a long tradition of inviting the Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the Church of England, and the Episcopal Bishops of New York, to senior positions in the Pilgrims Society. As discussed before, one of the primary founders of the Pilgrims of the United States was Bishop Henry C. Potter. This was the Bishop of New York from 1887 to 1908 who regularly went to England to preach at Canterbury Cathedral, St. Paul’s Cathedral, Westminster
Canterbury Cathedral in London and the Cathedral Church of St. John the Divine in New York, both staffed by Pilgrims Society members.
Abbey, and the Chapel Royal. Having many important friends at both sides of the Atlantic, in 1895 Bishop Potter officiated at the wedding of Consuelo Vanderbilt and the 9th Duke of Marlborough. Potter was also president of the Pilgrims of the United States from 1903 to 1907.
Next to the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterians are also well established in the Pilgrims. The Presbyterian Church is descended from the Scottish branch of the reformation.
A few of the Pilgrims have been of French descent which explains the fact that the Huguenot Society sometimes shows up in the biographies of members. The Huguenots were members of the Protestant Reformed Church of France.
Catholics have formed a small minority within the Pilgrims. They include a number of Knights of Malta. Examples of the latter are Myron C. Taylor, Joseph Kennedy, Dean Rusk, Elmer Bobst, J. Peter Grace, Alexander Haig, Lord Lothian and Lord Mowbray. Haig is on the executive committee of the Pilgrims since 1983. The Dukes of Norfolk, probably the most distinguished Catholic family in England and representatives to the Vatican for centuries, have also been occasional visitors of the Pilgrims gatherings.
Why would Catholics be allowed in such a strong Protestant milieu as the Pilgrims? One obvious reason would be to avoid accusations of discrimination; another to maintain good relations with the Vatican. However, traditionally the Anglo-American establishment has not been fond of Catholics holding high office. In the following example Neil Vanderbilt describes the reaction of the Anglo-American establishment when FDR appointed Joseph Kennedy as U.S. Ambassador to England, a position traditionally held by a Pilgrim:
“Nevertheless I feel sure that if Roosevelt were alive today he would disagree with Senator Kennedy [JFK, a Catholic] about the desirability of Catholics in high places. True, FDR nominated Al Smith and made Joseph Kennedy, the young Senator’s wealthy dad, our ambassador to England. But Smith eventually took a famous walk, and I’m not sure that the Kennedy appointment was made with any degree of enthusiasm; it was partly to please Jimmy Roosevelt, a business associate of Joe Kennedy’s. Certainly the English raised a terrific hue and cry over the appointment. And in private FDR did not hesitate to mention Catholic connections as a bar to political trust. Among high churchmen, the only one he trusted was Cardinal Stritch.” 
Although both FDR and the Anglo-American establishment were extremely wary of Catholic influence, Joseph Kennedy was treated with respect during his visits to the British Pilgrims while Roosevelt tried to maintain a good relationship with the Vatican by appointing Knight of Malta Myron C. Taylor as his personal representative to the Vatican. The Catholic Taylor, a Pilgrim and J. P. Morgan man, had already established a working relationship with the Holy See. At one point Cardinal Pacelli (Pope Pius XII from 1939 to 1958) stayed at Taylor’s home, and for dinner Taylor invited some of his most influential friends. These included the Rockefellers, the widow of Andrew Carnegie, the Bakers (Morgan partners) and members of the Ogden Mills family – all Pilgrims by the way . Roosevelt at one point explained to his friend Neil Vanderbilt why he was reaching out to the Vatican. It is likely that the Pilgrims allow a small number of Catholics and Knights of Malta for similar diplomatic reasons:
“Non-Catholic churches here put up a big howl [after FDR appointed Myron C. Taylor as ambassador to the Vatican]. Mr. Roosevelt told me one evening in the Lincoln Study at the White House why he had done this. He told me, first of all, he had wanted to make peace with the Catholic Church in the United States as represented in his cabinet by James Farley, the postmaster general, and with various other high Catholic personages, such as Archbishop Stritch of Chicago and Spellman of New York. But in addition, he said, he had appointed Mr. Taylor because the best intelligence system in the entire world, better even than the British, was the intelligence system of the Catholic Church, as received through its priests and high church personnel throughout the entire world. I remembered my reference to the Vatican dossier back in the twenties, and agreed.” 
Templar and Masonic orders
Apart from membership in the regular Protestant churches or membership in honorary Templar orders as the Knights of the Garter, the Knights of the Thistle (Scotland) and the Order of St. John, a good number of Pilgrims have also been Freemasons. More interestingly, a small percentage of Pilgrims have also been involved in rather exotic royalist Templar orders. We aren’t talking here about highly irregular lodges as Memphis Misraim or the Synarchist and Martinist Order, but names like the Order of the Holy Royal Arch Knight Templar Priest or the Order of the Merovingian Dynasty still sound quite mystical. Here is a larger list of the orders different Pilgrims have been involved with:
Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite Order DeMolay
Descendants of the Knights of the Garter Order of the Holy Royal Arch Knight Templar Priest
Grand Lodge of the State of New York Shriners
International Society Fraternal Chief Executives Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia
Knights Templar United Grand Lodge
Knights of Pythias Order of Plantagenet
Masonic Brotherhood Foundation Order of the Merovingian Dynasty
“Mason” Order of the Crown of Charlemagne
Among the literally hundreds of institutes the British royal family are patrons of, is the United Grand Lodge. The legend is that Freemasonry has descended from the rituals of the Knights Templar, which had a peculiar obsession with Solomon’s Temple and were said to be involved in certain occult or ritualistic practices. The Knights Templar were active in France until their persecution by the Papacy in 1307. Some of these Templars allegedly fled to Scotland where they were accepted by fellow crusaders Robert de Bruce and the Sinclair family. Connected or not, some time after these Templars arrived, the Sinclair family began to build Rosslyn Chapel, which is supposed to be a replica of Solomon’s Temple; accounts of Rosicrucian (often translated as “Rosy Cross”, after the Rosicrucian symbol involving a rose and a cross; translating the Dutch term “Rozekruiser” literally means “Crusader of the Rose”) initiations began to surface, and an apparently Rosicrucian-connected Martin Luther set off the reformation against the Vatican .
As for Freemasonry, is it really linked to Templarism and Rosicrucianism? It appears so, but at least to this author the history of these secret societies is too complex, too controversial and too unknown to go into any amount of detail. For this article it is sufficient to note that all the traditional secret societies in the West ultimately have taken their inspiration from the Middle-East, particularly Egypt, and that the men heading these different societies today seem to have a pretty good idea of that. The average Freemasonry lodge makes you feel as if you went back in time to ancient Egypt. As for Templars, the highest level of the York Rite of Freemasonry is a Knights Templar order, which is a layer above the Royal Arch Masons and the Cryptic Masons. The Scottish Rite has a similar system. The following excerpt comes from the text ‘Masonry Beyond the Third Degree’, written by the Supreme Council, 33° in the United States:
“The Scottish Rite degrees give insight to the expansion of Masonic legends. The Lodge of Perfection, 4°–14°, is concerned with events following the murder of Hiram Abiff [linked to the sacred geometry architects of the Cult of Dionysis]: burying him; capturing and punishing his murderers; finding a new master builder; and discovering treasurers buried under King Solomon’s temple. The 15° and 16° explain the return of Zerubbabel from Babylon to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem. The 17° and 18° center around re-instituting the word under the Law of Love as taught by Jesus and other religious reformers. The 19°–30° culminate with the Degree of Knight Kadosh, a spiritual knighthood similar to the Knight Templar, and develop the Scottish Rite’s myth of Masonic succession from crusading knights.” 
It appears that these romantic Templar stories have become part of the history and culture of Britain. They are essentially part of the Arthurian legends, like King Arthur, Merlin, the Knights of the Round Table, and even the Holy Grail. Knights, royalty, and ancient “secret” knowledge have always combined well, and this should especially be the case in the British upper classes whose direct ancestors have often been the source for these legends. In other words, British aristocrats involved in royalist, Freemasonic and Templar organizations appear to be doing nothing more than upholding their heritage, even if this heritage to some extent is a romantic fairy tale. The “pagan” Celtic groves, in which even senior members of the Anglican Church have become members, is a similar example . Another example of the influence of Arthurian legends is a club named the Society of Knights of the Round Table which is filled with aristocrats and top military figures. The society regularly meets at the prestigious Army and Navy Club .
Interestingly, besides membership in a number of templar organizations, among the Pilgrims have been the 20th century descendants of the two most legendary templar-related families. These are David Kirkpatrick Este Bruce, who was a vice president of the society, his brother, and William MacDonald Sinclair, a member of the executive committee of the Pilgrims who played a significant role in setting up the American branch of the society. This may well be one more example of the British upper classes’ interest in keeping the Arthurian legends alive.
The big interests
We have taken a little bit of a detour here. From banking, business and media we soon ended up discussing revolutionary societies and templar orders. This is all part of who the Pilgrims are, but many of the most important institutes and interests haven’t been discussed yet. So let’s get back to the core issues: politics and business.
There are a lot of private institutes and a number of big interests which repeatedly come up in the biographies of Pilgrims. The following table lists these institutes and interests, together with how many persons in PEHI’s membership list of 1,500 have been involved with them. Keep in mind that there have been at least 1,500 additional Pilgrims which we either don’t know about or haven’t written a biography of. Also, there are many other political institutes Pilgrims have been involved with that have been left out for practical reasons. The IISS, the Atlantic Councils, the Foreign Policy Association, the Washington Institute of Foreign Affairs and the Aspen Institute are all examples of this.
CFR members 232 This means that about 18% of the US Pilgrims are CFR members.
CFR executives 47 About half of total leadership until late 1980s, including all four chairmen and all vice chairmen until at least 1991.All presidents until 1971, except Norman Davis.
Rockefeller interests 107 Includes executives from Standard Oil, Chase Manhattan, and the foundations, but also family members and close friends of the Rockefellers. Museum of Modern Art trustees not included, even though this museum is almost exclusively loaded with close Rockefeller associates. John D., Jr., Nelson, David, Percy Avery, James Stillman, and William (d. 1990) were all members of the Pilgrims Society.
Morgan interests 100 Includes executives from all the different Morgan banks, trustees of the Pierpont Morgan Library, and also family and close friends of the Morgans. J. P. Morgan, Sr., J. P. Morgan, Jr., and Henry S. Morgan were all Pilgrims.
United Nations posts 82 Ambassadors or other representatives to the United Nations, including a number of founders. Also board members of the private UN Association. The League of Nations, the predecessor of the United Nations, was also dominated by Pilgrims.
Carnegie network 51 Includes anyone associated with the Carnegie Corporation, the Carnegie Foundation and the Carnegie Endowment, and also family and close friends of the late Andrew Carnegie. The Carnegie Corporation gives huge research grants to virtually all the major universities in the United States and southern Africa. Andrew Carnegie was a member of the Pilgrims Society.
Ditchley 35 Mostly governors of either the American or British Ditchley Foundation. Ditchley is an important Anglo-American discussion group.
Federal Reserve 33 The vast majority of these have been senior officers in the New York branch or the overall Federal Reserve Board.
Trilateral Commission 26 Didn’t specifically look for this, so there are probably more.
Bilderberg 20 Didn’t specifically look for this so there are probably more. However, many of the most important Pilgrims also tend to be important Bilderberg members. Bilderberg chairmen Lord Carrington and Lord Roll are among the Pilgrims.
Atlantic Institute of International Affairs 10 Executive level members. There are likely quite a number more among the Pilgrims, as not that many names of the AIIA are known. The AIIA appears to be mainly a think tank for NATO, the OECD and European integration along the lines of Jean Monnet (who was sponsored by a clique of Pilgrims bankers).
None of these institutes and big interests should really come as a surprise, as they have been talked about for decades; and not only in more recent conspiracy and patriotic circles. The Morgans’ all-powerful influence on the U.S. economy in the late 19th and early 20th century was known everywhere. During World War I the bank was accused of war profiteering. In the late 1930s, just before World War II, the Morgans were continually attacked for being in league with the British, because they were part of the campaign to bring the United States into the war on the side of England. Not only the public, but also officials in FDR’s administration, including FDR himself, kept a close eye on the Morgan bank, trying to make sure it would not profit from the war as it had done in the first World War.  FDR fully realized that the Morgans, Rockefellers and New York high society in general “often represented important forces or areas of influence”. 
The Pilgrims also reckoned the Morgans and Rockefellers as major interests which shouldn’t be carelessly tossed aside. Frederick Cunliffe-Owen, chairman of the Pilgrims of the United States in 1920, wrote a letter on February 8, 1924 in which he clearly identified the influence of the Morgans and Rockefellers:
“That bounder Charles Sherrill [who had been forced to resign as chairman of the Pilgrims]. By his tactlessness and indiscretion, he had queered himself with everybody, with the Government at Washington… with the British Embassy… as well as with the French Embassy, with the Morgans, the Standard Oil people and all the big interests including the Chamber of Commerce of New York…” 
The influence of the Morgan family largely ceased to exist with the death of Jack Morgan in 1943. Jack’s son, Henry S. Morgan, did remain a partner in the investment branch, Morgan Stanley, until his death in 1982, but by that time the influence of the Morgan Bank had little do anymore with the family.
The Rockefeller influence continued to exist after their huge Standard Oil monopoly was broken up in 1911. It actually made John D. Rockefeller, Sr. the richest man on the planet, leaving the family free to maintain a significant interest in several of the new companies. Exxon (Standard Oil of New Jersey) was the most important of these and was dominated by the Rockefellers until at least the late 1980s.  John D. Rockefeller, Jr. continued to oversee his father’s business and philantropic interests, but it was his oldest son, Nelson Rockefeller, who rose to some of the most important posts in the U.S. government. Nelson was the de facto ruler of Latin America during World War II, was influential in setting up the United Nations, briefly oversaw some of the most classified special operations under Eisenhower and was vice president of the United States under Gerald Ford from 1974 to 1977. After Nelson died, his younger brother David became the most visible face of the Rockefeller family. Instead of being active in regular politics, David has been an important player in some of the most important private NGOs the world has seen; from the CFR and Bilderberg to the Trilateral Commission, the Americas Society and the Atlantic Institute; you name it. Nelson’s main focus was anti-communism while David has been more concerned with the globalization process.
There are many other aspects of the Rockefeller family that can be discussed, but the main purpose here is to show that these Rockefeller family interests and the Morgan bank have continued to be dominant forces in the Anglo-American Establishment. The table above which listed the Rockefeller and Morgan interests within the Pilgrims Society already said a lot, but just to be sure it might be helpful to focus on the Morgan and Rockefeller ties of the more recent Pilgrims Society leadership.
For this analysis PEHI has used nineteen annual Pilgrims of the United States officers list dating from 1973 to 1995. There are a total of 54 different people on these lists. John C. Whitehead and Thomas L. Pulling have been added to this analysis, as we know the former at the moment is a Pilgrims vice president and member of the executive committee, while Pulling was an executive member in the late 1990s. This brings us to a total of 56 Pilgrims of the United States Officers since 1973 that we know about (ignoring two others of the late 1990s). The table below shows the 21 officers with rather obvious connections to the Rockefeller interests or the Morgan bank.
Hulbert S. Aldrich 1907-1995 Cousin of the Rockefellers. President of Greer School with Mrs. David Rockefeller (1942-1947). Vice chairman and a director the Chemical Bank New York Trust Company.
Winthrop W. Aldrich 1885-1974 Uncle of Nelson Rockefeller. Early member CFR. President and chair of Chase National Bank.
Hoyt Ammidon 1909-1988 Personal-investment manager for Vincent Astor in the 1950s. Chair U.S. Trust Co. Fellow Pierpont Morgan Library. His son became managing director of Chase Manhattan Investment Bank and shared a board with Peter C. Rockefeller.
Kingman Brewster 1919-1988 Special assistant in the governmental office of Nelson Rockefeller. Member CFR. Trustee Carnegie Endowment.
Eli Whitney Debevoise 1899-1990 Heir to the Rockefeller-Whitney Standard Oil fortune through his mother. Associate of Winthrop W. Aldrich, an uncle of Nelson Rockefeller. Trustee of Rockefeller University. Member CFR.
C. Douglas Dillon 1909-2003 Schoolmates had included Nelson, Laurance and John Rockefeller III. Director and later chair of Dillon, Read & Co. which financed the Nazis. Chairman Rockefeller Foundation. Board member Chase Manhattan Bank. Vice chair CFR. Associated with many other important people and institutions.
John R. Drexel III 1919-2007 The Drexel banker firm historically were partners of J.P. Morgan. The Astors, Aldriches and Rockefellers were among John Drexel’s friends. John’s son, John R. Drexel, IV, also became a Pilgrims executive.
John W. Gardner 1912-2002 Associate of Nelson Rockefeller. Director or advisor of Rockefeller Brothers Fund and Rockefeller University. President of the Carnegie Corporation and Carnegie Foundation. Member CFR.
Thomas S. Gates 1906-1983 CEO and chairman of Morgan Guaranty Trust. Member CFR.
S. Parker Gilbert alive Son and godson of two J. P. Morgan partners who were early CFR members. Chairman of Morgan Stanley and trustee of the Morgan Library who still keeps a close eye on the traditional Morgan interests. CFR member.
Alfred Hayes d. 1989 Employee. National City Bank. Chair Morgan Stanley. Member CFR.
Robert V. Lindsay alive Assistant vice president J.P. Morgan & Co. Chair Morgan Guarantee Trust. Director Americas Society. Member CFR.
John M. Meyer, Jr. d. 1996 Chair and CEO of J.P. Morgan & Co. and Morgan Guaranty Trust. Member CFR.
Henry S. Morgan 1900-1982 A son of J.P. Morgan, Jr. Partner in J. P. Morgan & Co. and co-founder Morgan Stanley. Trustee of the Morgan Library. Early member CFR. OSS during WWII, together with his brother.
Ellmore C. Patterson 1913-2004 Married into the Choate family, which was intimately connected to the Rockefeller and Morgan interests, just as the Pilgrims. Chair J.P. Morgan & Co. Shared at least two boards with Laurance Rockefeller. Member CFR.
Pulling, Thomas L. alive Assistant treasurer J.P. Morgan & Co. Inc., New York City, 1962-1968. Retired as a managing director of Citigroup in 2006.
Eben W. Pyne 1917-2007 President and director of National City Trust and senior vice president National City Bank.
William Rockefeller 1918-1990 Son of William Avery Rockefeller and descendant of John D. Rockefeller, Sr. Chair Geraldine Rockefeller Dodge Foundation.
Dean Rusk 1909-1994 Rhodes Scholar. President Rockefeller Foundation. Co-founder Club of Rome. CFR member.
John C. Whitehead alive Huge globalist and long-time close associate of David Rockefeller. Director Rockefeller University.
John Hay Whitney 1904-1982 Brother-in-law of Vincent Astor. Worked on inter-American cooperation with Nelson Rockefeller during WWII. Chair of the Museum of Modern Art, which has a very strong Rockefeller influence. Trustee Carnegie Foundation.
At any one time from the 1970s to the 1990s there was a dominant presence of Morgan and Rockefeller men on the board of the Pilgrims of the United States, leading to the obvious conclusion that these interests still represent the cornerstone of the Anglo-American Establishment. The Carnegie foundations are also quite dominant among the recent Pilgrims leadership, just as most of the other institutes listed earlier in this paragraph.
It is also possible to spot the Rockefeller and Morgan interests in the leadership of the Pilgrims of Great Britain. Viscount William Harcourt, for example, who was an executive member of the Pilgrims of Great Britain until his death in 1979, was the great-grandson of Junius S. Morgan and the great-nephew of J. P. Morgan. After having been educated at Oxford, Harcourt spent two months at J. P. Morgan & Co. and Morgan Stanley in New York. Eventually, in 1968, he became chairman of Morgan Grenfell, the British branch of J. P. Morgan. Lord Carrington, president of the Pilgrims of Great Britain since 1983, used to be a member of the international council of the Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan Bank. There are a few other, less important examples of British Pilgrims representing Morgan and Rockefeller interests. Sir Evelyn Baring, a British executive member, had his traineeship at J. P. Morgan in New York. Pilgrim Bill Mackworth-Young was head of Morgan Grenfell from 1980 until his death in 1984. Pilgrim John M. Wallace head of Chase National Bank’s London offices while also vice president of Equitable Trust Company. More examples will surface when more names of the British Pilgrims become known.
The officers and regular members of the Pilgrims of Great Britain have represented a greater variety of influential banks than their friends on the other side of the ocean. The most important English banks in the Pilgrims of Great Britain, next to Morgan Grenfell and to some extent Chase, have been Lazard, Barings, Barclays, Hambros, J. Henry Schroder, S. G. Warburg and probably also National Westminster. The families and individuals heading these banks at the same time have dominated the Bank of England for generation after generation.
The following Bank of England governors are known to have been members of the Pilgrims of Great Britain:
Hugo Baring Lord Cameron Cobbold Lord Robert Kindersley Lord Gordon Richardson*
Sir Evelyn Baring Sir Charles Hambro Sir Maurice Henry Parsons Lord Montagu Norman*
Laurence John Cadbury Sir William Keswick Lord R. Leigh-Pemberton *
Lord Thomas Catto Sir John Keswick Sir David Walker *
* Charles Savoie is only source
Even though PEHI’s membership list contains about 250 British members, it’s already obvious that not only the Bank of England, but also such institutes as the the Foreign Office and the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) are strongly represented. This might have been expected, because they are the British counterparts of the Federal Reserve, the State Department and the Council on Foreign Relations.
As for the Royal Institute of International Affairs, it’s impossible at this moment to do as thorough an analysis as has been done with its US counterpart, simply because there’s not that much information on membership. However, the following Pilgrims have played a significant role in the Royal Institute of International Affairs:
3rd Marquess of Salisbury Member of a prominent Pilgrims Society family. Co-founder and first chairman of the Royal Institute of International Affairs in 1920
Waldorf Astor Member of one of the most prominent Pilgrims Society families in both Britain and the United States. Chairman of the Royal Institute for International Affairs from 1935 to 1949 and had helped to establish it in 1920.
Sir Duncan Oppenheim Chairman of the Royal Institute of International Affairs from 1966 to 1971.
Lord Greenhill Chaired some of the meetings of the Royal Institute of International Affairs back in the 1970s.
Sir David Ormsby-Gore Chairman of the Royal Institute of International Affairs from 1978 to 1984.
Lord Gordon Richardson In early 1984 The Times named Lord Richardson as the soon-to-be-appointed chairman of the Royal Institute of International Affairs. Can’t tell if he was actually appointed.
Lord Carrington Long-time president of the Pilgrims Society. Member of the Royal Institute of International Affairs.
Lord Paddy Ashdown One of today’s three presidents of the Royal Institute of International Affairs.
Lord George Robertson Another one of today’s three presidents of the Royal Institute of International Affairs. Previously he was for seven years on RIIA governing council.
Like their American colleagues the British Pilgrims also tend to support the United Nations, together with NATO and liberal globalist institutions as the World Bank, the IMF, the OECD and the Atlantic Institute of International Affairs (quite a number of Pilgrims are governors of this last institute).
The State Department vs. the DoD’s Neoconservatism
For American Pilgrims the most important government department is the Department of State; no less than 17 of the 28 Secretaries of State of the 20th century appear in Pilgrims list compiled by PEHI. In case of the British Pilgrims this department is the Foreign Office. Why the Pilgrims have this continuous involvement in these government departments – several hundred ambassadors can be found within the ranks of the Pilgrims Society – may have a variety of reasons: one is the aristocratic nature of diplomacy; another the importance of this department over many of the other, less influential offices.
After World War II the State Department’s monopoly over foreign affairs received significant competition from the covert intelligence and action branches of the intelligence agencies, the most well known being the CIA. The Defense Department’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) also has been involved in its fair share of covert action, about which we know far less than the CIA’s . As the following report summarizes, it is this Defense Department which increasingly has grown 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.” 
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 most officials in the Bush administration wouldn’t think of saying. 
In the early days the Defense Department, founded in 1947 as part of the national security state, was regularly headed by a Pilgrim, or at least a close associate of the traditional Eastern Establishment. Think of James Forrestal (1947-1949), George Marshall (1950-1951), Robert Lovett (1951-1953), Thomas S. Gates (1959-1961) and, briefly, Elliot L. Richardson (January-May 1973). Caspar Weinberger (1981-1987), a Pilgrims executive, was also very much devoted to the Anglo-American cause, but didn’t have a traditional Eastern Establishment background.
Charles E. Wilson was the first Secretary of Defense (1953-1957) who was not really himself part of the Anglo-American establishment. But it is clear that the political ideas of this early Secretary of Defense were much more in line with the Anglo-American establishment than some of his Neoconservative successors, Rumsfeld (1975-1977; 2001-2006) and Cheney (1989-1993) in particular. Interestingly, it was Washington Post editor and columnist Robert G. Kaiser, the son of Pilgrim Philip M. Kaiser, who in 1977 wrote one of the best exposés on the the new and upcoming Neoconservative movement. The article also described how the Neoconservatives had begun to implement their own “Mockingbird” operation:
“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.” 
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, 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’s and James Baker’s (a Pilgrim) antagonist relationship with Israel and the Zionist movement should hardly come as a surprise .
Pilgrims and 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 quite 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 1,500 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 for the Rothschilds, they were only moderately Zionist at best. The Rothschilds can’t be compared to today’s radical Zionist lobby, however.
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 they 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 which 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-WWII immigration laws while the British kept blocking the Jews from entering Palestine. 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. Within several years they had 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 guerilla war against the British administration in Palestine.  The result was that the British were forced in the spring of 1947 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, was supported by all the big interests, which had grown very tired of FDR’s pro-New Deal and anti-fascist 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 tendency towards 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 Loftus is not a particularly reliable writer. Taking a look at the biography provided with his books will satisfy most people: consultant to CBS’s 60 Minutes and ABC’s Prime Time and former prosecutor with the Justice Department’s Nazi hunting unit with access to top secret national security archives. Unfortunately, Loftus is also an ultra-radical Neoconservative with ties to rather notorious people in the CIA, Army Intelligence, Special Forces, British Intelligence and the Mossad.  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’s claim that James Forrestal, Allen Dulles and Nelson Rockefeller were working with the Nazis before and during World War II is accurate. And in this light Loftus gave an interesting account of the 1947 United Nations conference on the partitioning of Palestine.
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’s intelligence sources, Nelson was ultimately able to make 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
Zionist meeting in the 1950s. F.l.t.r.: Moshe Tov, Latin-American secretary for the Jewish Agency; ambassador Gideon Raphael, a senior Israeli diplomat; Sy Kenan, founder and head of the powerful AIPAC lobby; Mossad founder Reuven Shiloah, who became minister of Israel to the U.S.; and Abba Eban, Israeli ambassador to the U.S. Shiloah was largely responsible for weaving Israel’s “triangle of influence” in the United States, a reference to Israel’s contacts in the White House and the State Department, both houses of Parliament, and the major Jewish lobby organizations. AIPAC takes care of Congress and the Senate; CPMAJO, once headed by Shiloah’s close ally, Philip M. Klutznick (president of B’nai B’rith and the World Jewish Congress), focuses on the executive branch. What did these men know about the Rockefellers and other industrialist and banking families who worked with the fascists before and during WWII? 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 a minister 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 something from the Latin American countries. But did the Zionists really blackmail Rockefeller? That’s a question 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.
Pilgrims and international fascism
“Conservative people often fail to see what they are doing when they ignore the evident perils of the Fascist state on the ground that it is after all preferable to Communism… If the Fascist state wins out, the cleavages [between a small group of leaders and all the rest] will be extraordinarily great…”
– 1930s, liberal Catholic spokesman George N. Shuster (1939, George Seldes, ‘The Catholic Crisis’, pp. 9-10)
The collaboration of U.S., British and French companies and banks with the fascist regimes, especially Germany, goes back to the birth of communism in 1917 and the Treaty of Versailles in 1919.
Simply put, fascism is the antithesis to everything communism is supposed to have stood for. Working conditions have never been particularly uplifting for the average citizens, but the industrial revolution during the late 19th century and early 20th century rapidly began to change things. As a result of technological advances leading to more wealth and better education, the suppressed workers class slowly began to organize itself against the ruling class of industrialists and land barons. This led to the creation of political movements as socialism and communism, which promoted the idea of a class struggle. The industrialists resisted by firing, intimidating, and-or murdering workers who tried to organize labor unions . Politicians sponsored by this same ruling class also had by far the biggest chance of getting elected to public office, not only because of funds donated to their electoral campaigns but also through favorable press reports. William E. Dodd, FDR’s ambassador to Nazi Germany from 1933-1938, characterized fascism in the following way:
“When industrialists ignore laws designed for social and economic progress, they will seek recourse to a fascist state when the institutions of our government compel them to comply with the provisions.” 
The biggest fear of the great industrialists and land barons has always been communism and socialism. If the working classes would manage to stage revolutions as had happened in 1917 in the Soviet Union (which soon turned into a banal dictatorship), they would not only demand higher wages, social security and a reduced work week, but would also attempt to break up the monopolies and redistribute the great land holdings. The ruling class was not about to let this happen and sponsored leaders which would suppress these labor movements.
Mussolini in Italy 1922 Mussolini was sponsored by the Lega Industriale of Turin, the Confederazione Generale dell’Industria, the Associazione fra Industriali Metallurgici Mecannici ed Affini, the Landowners Association, the Societa Ansaldo (shipbuilders), Fiat, the Banca Commerciale of Milan and a whole range of other banks and corporations.  Leading Wall Street bankers were very supportive of Mussolini’s regime. One of the most prominent was Thomas W. Lamont, a Morgan banker and chairman of the Pilgrims from 1939 to 1945. 
Hitler in Germany 1933 Among the industrialists and bankers who provided crucial financial support to Hitler’s party were Fritz Thyssen, Hjalmar Schacht, Friedrich Frick and Baron Kurt von Schroder. The Wall Street allies of these Nazi financiers included Henry Ford, the Watson family of IBM, the Dillons, Rockefellers, and the Dulles brothers.  Along with leading British banks, member companies of the Federation of British Industries (equivalent of the fascist National Association of Manufacturers in the U.S.) also reached out to Hitler. 
Franco in Spain 1939 Sponsors of Franco were individuals as the Duke of Alba, who owned huge acres of land; Juan March, who had a tobacco monopoly; Rio Tinto Spain and the Society of Jesus. The latter had suffered great loss of property after King Alfonso had been thrown out.  Incredibly, Britain supported the fascist takeover. 
Japan – At the time of World War II, Japan was completely controlled by a financial oligarchy surrounding emperor Hirohoto. The major “Zaibatsu” in this oligarchy were Mitsui, Mitsubishi, Sumitomo and Yasuda.  Some of them had cartel agreements with companies as Standard Oil and I.G. Farben. 
France Banque Worms, Banque Nationale pour Le Commerce et l’Industrie, the Banque de Paris et des Pays Bas, and the Banque de l’Indochine all supported French fascism.  Chase Paris was equally pro-fascist , while the pro-fascist British branch of Lazard closely cooperated with its French counterpart .
One of the French versions of fascism centered around reports of a “Synarchist Movement of Empire” which, together with sympathetic elements in the United States, Great Britain, Nazi Germany, and likely other countries, was interested in carving up the world in monopolistic cartels (where have we heard that before?), followed by political integration. Coincidentally, among the American interests reportedly sympathetic to the Synarchy were pro-fascist industrialists as Ford and Du Pont. A WWII U.S. intelligence document reportedly read:
“The reactionary movement known as “Synarchie” has been in existence in France for nearly a century. Its aim has always been to carry out a bloodless revolution, inspired by the upper classes, aimed at producing a form of government by “technicians” (the founder of the movement was a “polytechnician”), under which home and foreign policy would be subordinated to international economy…
“It is alleged that certain industrial circles in Great Britain are also in sympathy with the movement. Some headway is claimed to have been made in securing the adhesion of big U.S. industry to the movement…
“In regard to Germany, it is hoped ultimately to eliminate Hitler, Goebbels, and Himmler with his Gestapo, from the political scene, thus facilitating the formation of an Anglo-Franco-German economic bloc…
“The source has added that in the Worms group it is believed that those circles in Great Britain who are favorably disposed to their plans, are most critical of [the pro-interventionist] Mr. Churchill…” 
The Synarchy is generally laughed at by historians these days, but virtually all of them ignore the fact that there’s a lot of evidence that big business supported international fascism, while at the same time not only the “gullible” public was interested in the Synarchy, but also that American diplomats and French judges took it very serious.
Promising reports on the Synarchy went away in the months after World War II, and most of the big financiers and industrialists (who were said to be behind the Synarchy) were released. Reports that this Synarchy had been behind fascist groups like the Cagoule, which tried to undermine French democracy before World War II, were never thoroughly investigated. 
Great Britain Before and during World War II there was a large group of aristocrats, bankers, and industrialists which sought to cooperate with the new fascist regimes in Europe. Prime minister Chamberlain, the Duke of Windsor clique, Imperial Chemical Industries and the Federation of British Industries, press barons as Lord Rothermere and Lord Beaverbrook, the major banking families dominating the Bank of England–they all supported “Anglo-German peace” while promoting domestic groups as the British Union of Fascists, the Link, the Nordic League and the secretive Right Club.
United States As already reported, and as will be detailed later on this article, the industrialists and Wall Street bankers that supported the fascist regimes in Europe, also promoted domestic fascism within the United States. They included the largest family fortunes in the United States of the time, including Ford, du Pont, Rockefeller, Mellon, McCormick, Hartford, Harkness, Duke, Pew, Pitcairn, Clark, Reynolds, Kress.  To this list of promoters of fascism can be added Morgan, Watson, Aldrich, Dillon, Dulles, etc. Many of these families belonged to the Pilgrims.
After Germany had lost World War I, there was some disagreement about what to do with the country. The French wanted to tear it down militarily, financially and politically and take control of Germany’s huge coal and iron ore reserves. The British establishment was very apprehensive of this, as historically France had been a great opponent of Britain. They did not want to see a powerful France which could challenge the interests of the British Empire; so instead they began – with the help of Wall Street – extending large loans to Germany in an effort to revitalize its economy.  Hitler understood Britain’s attitude very well. Already in 1924, in his book ‘Mein Kampf’, he wrote:
“What England has always desired, and will continue to desire, is to prevent any one Continental Power in Europe from attaining a position of world importance…The consequences of England’s war policy were and are disastrous for Germany. However, we cannot close our eyes to the fact that, as things stand to-day, the necessary interests of England no longer demand the destruction of Germany. On the contrary, British diplomacy must tend more and more, from year to year, towards curbing France’s unbridled lust after hegemony…” 
British bankers as Montagu Norman, Lord Kindersley and Charles Hambro (all Pilgrims) called Germany, even after the Nazis had taken over, a “great stabilizing force” , a reference to both French and communist influence. They encouraged large loans to be made to Germany. The same attitude dominated Wall Street. The Morgan bank extended large loans to Germany and Mussolini’s Italy. In the mid 1920s Dillon, Read & Company, another major Pilgrims firm, set up Vereinigte Stahlwerke (German Steel Trust) and the German Credit and Investment Corp. with Fritz Thyssen. Thyssen would become one of the most important financiers of Hitler. The Harriman family, Pilgrims and good friends of the Dillons, set up the Union Banking Corporation (UBC) with this same Fritz Thyssen. Other Nazi financiers, the Rockefellers and Schroders, joined forces in 1936, setting up Schroder Rockefeller & Co. The Watsons of IBM (Pilgrims) provided the Nazis with identification and cataloging technology which would make the holocaust so brutally effective. The prominent Pilgrims-dominated law firm Sullivan & Cromwell, headed at the time by the Dulles brothers, put together a lot of the contracts between Wall Street and the Nazi industrialists. One of the Dulles brothers, Allen, was on the board of the Schroder Bank and was closely associated with Baron Kurt von Schroder, who together with Hjalmar Schacht and Fritz Thyssen was a crucial supporter of Hitler.
Support for the Nazis in certain British aristocratic circles was just as strong. This might be confusing to a lot of people as it is still generally assumed that Hitler wanted to conquer Great Britain. This is not true. Hitler’s primary concern had always been to expand Germany’s “Lebensraum” into eastern Europe and Russia, and although he may have had plans from the beginning to secure the Atlantic border at some point, the British Empire was to be left alone. In fact, Hitler believed an alliance with Great Britain was desirable:
“If new territory were to be acquired in Europe it must have been mainly at Russia’s cost, and once again the new German Empire should have set out on its march along the same road as was formerly trodden by the Teutonic Knights… For such a policy, however, there was only one possible ally in Europe. That was England. Only by alliance with England was it possible to safeguard the rear of the new German crusade… No sacrifice should have been considered too great if it was a necessary means of gaining England’s friendship. Colonial and naval ambitions should have been abandoned and attempts should not have been made to compete against British industries.” 
Hitler repeated his desire for an Anglo-German alliance on many occasions.  Certain aristocratic circles in both Britain and Germany responded to this call by setting up a number of private Anglo-German societies. The Imperial Policy Group was organized in 1934; the Anglo-German Fellowship in 1935. The Anglo-German Association, which had existed since 1929, was equally filled with aristocratic supporters of a militant German regime.
A number of groups which sought to promote domestic fascism were also set up. The British Union of Fascists is the most well known, but there also were the Link, the Nordic League, and more secretive and extremely anti-semitic, the Right Club, organized in 1939. Following is a brief description of these societies and some of the peculiar people that could be found in them.
1929 Anglo-German Association At the time it was founded the set up of the Anglo-German Association was compared to that of the Pilgrims and the Anglo-French Society with both a domestic and a foreign branch.  The society’s aims were “to promote general friendly relations between Great Britain and Germany”.  First president of the society was the Pilgrim Lord Reading, who retired from the society in 1933 after public persecutions against Jews had begun in Germany.  President of the German branch was Wilhelm Cuno, who at the same time was chairman of the Hamburg-Amerika Line , the shipping line which throughout the 1930s worked in cooperation with the Harriman and Walker-Bush families in bringing Nazi propaganda and German agents to the United States.  The vice presidents of the British society mainly were hard-right, anti-communist appeasers, among them Lord D’Abernon*, Philip Snowden, H. A. L. Fisher*, and General Sir Ian Hamilton.  The latter might well have been a relative of the Duke of Hamilton whom Rudolf Hess tried to reach in May 1941. Sir Ian actually was among those Hess was interested in seeing after parachuting into Britain.
Carroll Quigley was very familiar with at least two vice presidents of the Anglo-German Association and recognized their hard-right leanings:
“The “anti-Bolsheviks,” who were also anti-French, were extremely important from 1919 to 1926, but then decreased to little more than a lunatic fringe, rising again in numbers and influence after 1934 to dominate the real policy of the government in 1939. In the earlier period the chief figures in this group were Lord Curzon*, Lord D’Abernon, and General Smuts*. They did what they could to destroy reparations, permit German rearmament, and tear down what they called “French militarism.”… The anti-Bolsheviks, including D’Abernon, Smuts, Sir John Simon, and H. A. L. Fisher (Warden of All Souls College), were willing to go to any extreme to tear down France and build up Germany. … D’Abernon advocated a secret alliance of Britain “with the German military leaders in cooperating against the Soviets.”” 
* attended one or more Pilgrims Society meetings.
1934 Imperial Policy Group The Imperial Policy Group was organized by a number of Conservative members of Parliament, among them Lord Scone, Alfred Wise and Victor Raikes.  The group was “seriously alarmed as to the drift of public opinion to the left”, wanted to return to an “Imperial policy”, and among the things they were interested in was a “strengthening of the Constitution”.  The group would soon become great supporters of Chamberlain’s appeasement policy. After the extremely treacherous and immoral Munich Agreement of 1938, in which Czechoslovakia was handed over to the Nazis, Victor Raikes even stated that Chamberlain “will go down in history as the greatest European statesman of this or any other time”.  The most interesting person that was involved with the Imperial Policy Group was Kenneth de Courcy, who had been among the founders, acted as secretary, and wrote the group’s reviews on international affairs. 
De Courcy was an agent and informant of Major General Stewart Menzies , the deputy head of the SIS (MI6), a strong advocate of appeasement, and a life-long anti-communist crusader and propagandist. De Courcy was also in close contact with Neville Chamberlain, whom he briefed after meeting with Mussolini in Italy and Eduard Benes of Czechoslovakia,  and the notoriously pro-Nazi Duke of Windsor (King of England from January to December 1936)  who was at the center of the anti-communist British-Nazi cooperation. Interestingly, on July 17, 1941, the News Review wrote about de Courcy:
“Outspokenly hostile was the Upper Crust Imperial Policy Group, whose secretary is Kenneth de Courcy. Year ago Mr. de Courcy was saying that Petain should negotiate peace rather than have a Communist Government set up in Paris. He once defended the Cagoulards (“Hooded Ones”), Fascist terrorist organization which attempted to seize power in France just before the war.” 
De Courcy and his associates sued the News Review for libel and won. Whatever the details of the case, this is exactly the kind of ideas you’d expect from a person like de Courcy. His associates were on the same page as the bankers and industrialists behind both the Cagoule and the Synarchy in France.
After World War II de Courcy continued to write his Intelligence Digest, a small anti-communist propaganda magazine which was also distributed in the United States. He became involved with the British Israel World Federation, which promotes the idea that “the descendants of the so-called “Lost Ten Tribes” of the Northern House of Israel are to be found in the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic and kindred peoples of today.”  In 1989 de Courcy’s name turned up again when Lyndon LaRouche claimed that he had been approached by de Courcy as a dealmaker on behalf of the people behind the Larouche persecution. 
1935 Anglo-German Fellowship The Anglo-German Fellowship, alternately known as the Anglo- German Friendship Society, was set up in 1935 with the help of City banker Ernest Tennant, who for several years by then had been a friend of Joachim von Ribbentrop, an unofficial and later official diplomat of Hitler in London.  Like the Anglo-German Association, the Anglo-German Fellowship had branches in both Germany and England. In a short amount of time the fellowship gathered about 50 members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, three directors of the Bank of England and many generals, admirals, bishops and bankers. The fellowship would organize dinners in London that would be attended by both British and German citizens.
Among the German aristocrats visiting meetings in London were the Duke of Saxe-Coburg Gotha, head of the German fellowship; Prince Otto von Bismark, a business associate of Hjalmar Schacht; Prince Ludwig of Hesse, who married the daughter of a British ambassador to the U.S. (a Pilgrim) who also was a long-time chairman of Rio Tinto; Graf Durckheim-Montmartin, one of Ribbentrop’s diplomats who at the same time was an occultist in contact with fascist occultists as Karl Haushofer and Julius Evola; Baron Steengracht, the Reich Foreign Office State Secretary; SS-Gruppenführer Graf von Pückler; Kurt Von Stutterheim, London correspondent for the Berliner Tageblatt; and Baroness Schroder, apparently the wife or a close relative of Baron Bruno Schroder or maybe the notorious Baron Kurt von Schroder. 
British visitors of Anglo-German Fellowship evenings have included a number of well known aristocratic appeasers, among them the Duke of Hamilton, the Lord Steward of the Royal Household whom Rudolf Hess tried to reach in 1941; Lord Londonderry, leader of the House of Lords and member of the Imperial Policy Group; the Duke of Wellington, a landowner who was a member of the secret fascist group the Right Club; Sir Ernest Bennett, another member of the Right Club; Frank Cyril Tiarks and his son Henry Frederick Tiarks (a Pilgrim), leading lights in the Bank of England and the Schroder Bank; Lord Lothian, a Pilgrim who was seen by Quigley as one of the leaders of the Round Table; and Lord Halifax, one of Chamberlain’s missionaries who was a great supporter of National Socialism (also a Pilgrim).  Sir Harry Brittain, co-founder, secretary and chairman of the Pilgrims of Great Britain, was a member of the Anglo-German Fellowship’s central council, together with Lord Walter Runciman, whose report in favor of the Sudenten Germans in Czechoslovakia in part led to the Munich Agreement; and Lord McGowan, the chairman of Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) and one the men to whom interned Nazi industrialists and bankers looked after World War II to get them paroled. 
The purpose of the Anglo-German Fellowship was to “bring about enduring friendship between the German and British peoples” . The German attitude, which often corresponded with those of British aristocrats, was represented by a conversation Tennant had with Ribbentrop in mid 1939, about which Tennant recorded:
“Hitler had always hoped and expected to come to a firm understanding with Britain by which Germany, after having guaranteed the present frontiers of France, Holland and Belgium for ever, would look after Britain’s interests on the Continent in exchange for Britain looking after Germany’s interests overseas. This would have meant peace and prosperity for 1000 years. Hitler used to have tremendous ideas of what could be done with the two countries marching in step side by side… Ribbentrop’s last words to me as we parted on the platform in Berlin were ‘Good-bye, and let us remember your English proverb – “It is never too late to mend”‘. 
Interestingly, Tennant was a (very) close relative of the younger Sir Peter Tennant , who after World War II would chair some of the meetings of the hard-right, anti-communist Pinay Cercle. Certain French members of this Cercle used to have close ties to the Banque Worms and the Synarchy clique. The son of Sir Ernest Bennett (a fellowship member), Sir Frederic M. Bennett, was another post-war anti-communist crusader closely associated with the British Pinay Cercle leadership.
One interesting name that stands out among the visitors of the Anglo-German Fellowship is the Princess de Chimay.  Her husband, the Prince of Chimay, had died in 1937. This family name is of particular interest to PEHI, because in 2007 we reported how the Belgian domain of the Princes of Chimay has been named in the X-Dossiers as a place where members of a fascist underground were raping and hunting on children in the 1970s and 1980s.
1939 Right Club The Right Club was an anti-semitic, fascist group set up in May 1939 by Captain Archibald Ramsay, MP. In contrast to the British Union of Fascists, led by Oswald Mosley, the Right Club was exclusive and secret. It was only in the late 1990s that a good number of names and details of this club became available to the public. A summary of the history of the legendary “Red Book”, which contained the members and donors of the Right Club, was given by The Independent in 2000:
“The existence of the Red Book first emerged in 1943 during a heated debate in Parliament. By then, it had already been seized by MI5. For 40 years, the ledger was believed to have been lost and its whereabouts was much speculated upon… What happened to the Red Book? According to Professor Richard Griffiths, the police had it until October 1944. But it seems likely that it was returned to Ramsay after his release. Nothing was seen of it until the late 1980s, when it was discovered at the bottom of an old safe in a solicitor’s office. Luckily, the finder was familiar with Professor Griffiths’s work and passed it to him. Professor Griffiths used it as a primary source for his book, Patriotism Perverted: Captain Ramsay, The Right Club and British Anti-Semitism 1939-40 [published in 1998], then deposited the book at the Wiener Library. Last week it was, for the first time, opened to the public.” 
Although the Independent claimed to be the first to review the Red Book after Professor Griffiths, it actually was the Daily Mail who already in December 1998 went to visit Professor Griffiths and reviewed a copy of the book. The Daily Mail wrote:
“Among Right-wingers, from Edward VIII downwards, there was a widespread view that only a powerful Germany could hold back the threat of Bolshevism, and that Britain should be supporting Hitler, not preparing to attack him. Most people who shared this belief were not demonstrably anti-Semitic: but a minority were, and a number of them appear in the pages of the Red Book [of the Right Club]…
“Civilian life never really suited him [Archibald Ramsay] and he saw the spectre of what he called Organised Jewry behind every ‘subversive’ movement, ranging from Oliver Cromwell and the French Revolution to the spread of Communism. There was a host of well-connected men and women who shared Ramsay’s views. They joined the Right Club, whose main object was to avert war, in Ramsay’s words, by working ‘to oppose and expose the activities of organised Jewry’… It forged connections with other pro-Nazi, anti-Semitic groups, such as The Link, with more than 4,000 members, founded by Admiral Sir Barry Domvile, a former Director of Naval Intelligence [another group it strongly overlapped with was the Nordic League, which believed in the Aryan master race theory]… These were people whose bibles were Hitler’s Mein Kampf and something called the Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion…” 
Even though it was considerable more extreme, and therefore dangerous to be affiliated with, still a number of influential aristocrats were members of the Right Club. The Duke of Wellington, a frequent chair of the club’s meetings, and Sir Ernest Bennett  have already been mentioned as they were also visitors of the Anglo-German Fellowship. Admiral Sir Barry Domvile, founder of the fascist Link group, was a member of the Right Club.  Domvile was immediately picked up after war with Germany broke out. During his internment he claimed to fellow-inmates that Hitler “would soon be in this country, but that there was no reason to worry about it, because he would bring the Duke of Windsor over as King and conditions generally would be much improved.”  Major-General John Fuller, a good friend of the fascist press baron Lord Rothermere, was a member.  Fuller was a respected military figure on one hand; an occultist formerly close to Aleister Crowley on the other. Other members of the Right Club were the 2nd Duke of Westminster, the 2nd Baron Redesdale, who was the father of the Mitford Sisters; William Joyce, who fled Britain when World War II broke out and became a Nazi propagandist; the Marquess of Graham, the later 7th Duke of Montrose and Minister of Defence in Ian Smith’s Rhodesian Front government; Commander E. H. Cole, an anti-communist crusader since day one who had been appointed Chancellor of the White Knights, a British version of the Ku Klux Klan; Sir James Edmondson, a Conservative MP who was vice- chamberlain of the [Royal] Household from 1939 to 1942; the 1st Baron Teviot, a great-grandson of the 6th Marquess of Lothian, a Conservative MP, a comptroller of the Household from 1939 to 1940 and chairman of the Liberal National Party/National Liberal Party from 1940 to 1956; and many others. 
Ramsay actually ran the Right Club with former Russian White Army fascist Anna Wolkoff, who had developed a good relationship with the Duchess of Windsor.  In early 1940, Ramsay and Wolkoff were contacted by a cypher clerk at the United States Embassy in London who had been given highest level security clearances. This cypher clerk, Tyler Kent, was copying top secret communications between Roosevelt and Churchill and was particularly looking for evidence that Roosevelt wanted to bring the United States into World War II, something which was opposed by approximately 90 percent of U.S. citizens. Kent, Wolkoff and Ramsay provided their copied information to Italy and Germany, and tried to reach anti-Roosevelt isolationist forces in the United States. They were soon found out about and arrested in May 1940. A copy of the Red Book was found in Tyler’s possession, which aided in the arrest of several hundred other fascists in the same period. 
As can be indicated from the societies just described, appeasement was not at all unique to the Chamberlain government; it was a policy supported by many people. There was a great difference, however, between the public’s idea of appeasement, which was simply focused on the avoidance of a new war, and the idea of the ruling class to use appeasement as a tool to reorganize Europe in a way to their liking. These differences in attitude are quite obvious considering the almost total lack of sympathy for the people having to live under fascist rule. Not only did the appeasers sell out the Czechoslovakians, they also left Poland in the cold when it was attacked by Germany, and had earlier supported Franco’s takeover of Spain. As early as 1933, the Archbishop of Canterbury and Zionist-oriented families as the Cecils and Rothschilds described in depth the persecutions against the Jews.  To the appeasers this didn’t matter at all. They set up harsh immigration laws preventing the Jews from entering England and through the 1939 White Paper even made sure that immigration to Palestine was almost impossible. The reason for this last move was simple: Chamberlain and associates were also appeasing the anti-semite, fascist Arabs of the Middle-East, like Ibn Saud and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. The appeasers’ approach to Europe was entirely geopolitical. An example of this attitude is a 1936 speech of Arthur Salter (Pilgrims), a person who largely devised the structure on which today’s European Union is based:
“[Salter] offered his arguments to support appeasement. He quoted Smuts’s speech of 1934 with approval and pointed out the great need for living space and raw materials for Japan, Italy, and Germany. The only solution, he felt, was for Britain to yield to these needs… The liquidation of countries between Germany and Russia could proceed as soon as the Rhineland was fortified, without fear on Germany’s part that France would be able to attack her in the west while she was occupied in the east.” 
A co-appeaser of Sir Arthur Salter, Sir Ernest Bennett, as a member of the Anglo-German Fellowship and the Right Club arguably a total fascist, defended Chamberlain’s policies as follows in 1939:
“If the Germans, Italians, Turks, or other nations had no liking for parliaments, and preferred to be controlled by individual leaders whom they admired and trusted, surely that was their affair, not ours… leave other nations to govern themselves as they think fit.” 
An ally on the other side of the ocean, the earlier-mentioned Thomas W. Lamont, the Morgan banker and Pilgrims chairman who was a great supporter of Mussolini, was quoted saying almost exactly the same thing:
“Are we liberal enough to be willing for the Italian people to have the sort of government they apparently want?” 
It’s just really hard for the average person to understand mindsets like these, and it’s no surprise then that the British people were completely done with appeasement when even after the 1938 Munich Agreement – which many people already were very uncomfortable with – Hitler continued to demand new territory. The British public has actually been the reason that Chamberlain and his associates were never able to negotiate an alliance with Nazi Germany , something which Hitler desperately wanted. Because of this, Hitler was forced to attack the West first, cripple both France and England, and secure the entire Atlantic coast, from Hammerfest down to the Pyrenees. Already after the Dunkirk victory Hitler concluded that the “English [wouldn’t] show up again in this war” , but he did continue an air and sea campaign against Great Britain, trying to get it to surrender. Hitler had many reasons not to start a prolonged war against Great Britain. These were:
Conquering England would be very difficult because of its military power, isolation from mainland Europe, and material support from the United States.
An alliance with England would make a successful invasion of the USSR more likely and would neutralize any threat from France (or England for that matter).
Conquering Great Britain would result in the collapse of its empire, something which Hitler assumed would mainly benefit the Americans and the Japanese, as Germany would not be able to maintain the empire.
Hitler believed in Germany’s Teutonic heritage, which lay in the East; not in the West.
Hitler was very much interested in destroying Jews and communism, both of which could primarily be found towards the East of Germany.
Hitler considered Great Britain an equal in terms of cultural achievements and purity of the genes.
For about a year Hitler continued his campaign against Great Britain. Besides regular warfare, Hitler also dropped numerous leaflets of his July 1940 speech ‘A last appeal to reason’ over Britain, trying to up the pressure on Churchill to negotiate a peace settlement.  All this didn’t work, Hitler gave up, and the last great German bombardment on British soil was on May 10, 1941. The following month Hitler began his attack on the Soviet Union.
The same day as the last German bombardment on Britain, one of the more peculiar events of World War II transpired: Rudolf Hess, Hitler’s deputy, flew to Scotland in an effort to reach the Duke of Hamilton. Unfortunately for Hess, his self-imposed  mission failed, and he was put in jail. Initially Hess wouldn’t say a word about what he had come to do in Britain. It was only after a visit from Lord Beaverbrook, an old friend, that he explained Hitler’s desire for an Anglo-German military alliance against the Soviet Union.  Hess was a rather curious mysticist who apparently didn’t realise his own irrationality. Hitler’s idea of an anti-communist alliance was already known in the anti-communist, pro-German upper class he tried to reach, but they had not been able to circumvent Churchill or public opinion. Hess somehow assumed that his visit would have made a difference. As Churchill recounted:
“We have also to remember how oddly foreigners view our country and its way of doing things. When Rudolf Hess flew over here some months ago he firmly believed that he had only to gain access to certain circles in this country for what he described as “the Churchill clique” to be thrown out of power and for a Government to be set up with which Hitler could negotiate a magnanimous peace.” 
At this point there still are more questions than answers when it comes to the extent of the collaboration between Western politicians, bankers and industrialists with their Nazi counterparts. The role of leading Wall Street bankers is quite well known, but details about Great Britain and especially France are still a bit lacking. The same is true for the reasons behind this cooperation. Although the appeasers and isolationists were all allied in anti-communism, many of them appear to have had slightly varying reasons for supporting a soft-line approach towards Nazi Germany. The reasons that have been mentioned include:
Businessmen who were only interested in making money.
Members of the British establishment (and their allies) who wanted to build up Germany as a counterweight to France and the Soviet Union.
Members of the British establishment (and their allies) who not only wanted to build up Germany, but also wanted it to attack Russia and cripple France.
Bankers and industrialists from Allied countries who conspired with their colleagues in the fascist nations in an effort to destroy international communism, undermine labor unions and individual rights, and carve up the world markets in monopolies.
The ideas of these groups overlap to such an extent and so many members have been hiding their true reasons for supporting appeasement and isolation that it is almost impossible to tell who were only interested in making money, who were solely defending the interests of their class or their country, and who truly were international fascist conspirators. An example is the Rockefeller family. It has often been claimed that the Rockefellers were only interested in making money. However, they were also very anti-communist and close to the British aristocracy, which makes them candidates for category two or three. They might also fit in category four, as their Standard Oil company was part of the international cartel network which included Du Pont, General Motors and Ford in the United States, Imperial Chemical Industries in England, Kuhlmann in France, I.G. Farben in Germany, and Mitsui in Japan. Standard Oil’s openly pro-Nazi and pro-American fascism policies before and during World War II are additional evidence that the claim that they were only interested in making money is too simplistic. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, the father of appeasement, is another good example. He is often portrayed as a well-intentioned man who desperately wanted to avoid another war, but on the other hand he was rabidly anti-communist and never cared one bit for the Jews in either Nazi Germany or Palestine. Chamberlain also had significant stockholdings in Imperial Chemical Industries , encouraged investment in Nazi Germany and didn’t mind agitating the Soviets . So as you can see, it’s not entirely clear what the Anglo-American establishment expected of the Nazis.
What makes the question of Nazi collaboration even more confusing is the fact that many members of the same establishment that worked with the Nazi regime at the same time tried to get rid of Hitler. The anti-Hitler resistance in Germany largely centered around Admiral Wilhelm Canaris and his associates, who worked together with British Intelligence since 1938 in an effort to overthrow the German dictator. Prince Berhard’s younger brother, Aschwin, was among the intermediaries between the German conspirators and British Intelligence. These conspirators were not so much against authoritarian regimes, as their support for Franco showed, or their early support for Hitler, but they did consider Hitler a loose cannon who in the end would destroy Germany.
The whole problem with Hitler was that he could not be controlled by the establishments of the time. For centuries Germany had been divided by monarchist Protestant (mainly Prussian) and Catholic (mainly Bavarian) interests. Except for his anti-communism and anti-socialism, Hitler had little in common with these monarchist aristocrats, which he made painfully clear when marginalizing the influence of Franz von Papen in both 1933 and 1934. Von Papen was a reactionary Catholic nobleman and Knight of Malta who had earlier boasted to his associates that he would be able to control Hitler. He made the same mistake as Fritz Thyssen and Hjalmar Schacht, Hitler’s early crucial supporters, and the British appeasers. All of them wanted a strong, anti-communist leader, but at the same time one that the Vatican or the Anglo-American interests could reason with. Hitler, on the other hand, once he didn’t need his patrons anymore, set off on his own Germanic paganist conquering agenda, which ultimately was anti-Prostestant, anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish, or even anti-Masonic for that matter. Many high society people would have been fine with this as long as Nazism and communism fought each other to death, or when Nazism at the very least kept communism away from Europe. Unfortunately for these aristocrats, public opinion wouldn’t allow Britain to go fascist, which would have been necessary to prevent Hitler from securing the Atlantic coast first; and as soon as Hitler did this, public opinion in Britain demanded that the appeasers had to go and war be declared.
But even before Chamberlain was ousted by the public in May 1940, the less-hardline members of the Anglo-American establishment had already understood their mistake trying to work with Hitler. Arthur Salter, the appeaser who earlier had agreed to Germany’s “need” for living space and raw materials, had been urging the Chamberlain government since the summer of 1939 to struck an anti-German alliance with the Soviet Union. Other members of the Astor’s Cliveden Set (and the Anglo-American Establishment) also changed their opinion. In early 1937 the Pilgrims of the United States had still been interested in inviting members of the pro-appeasement Imperial Policy Group, but by October 1939, when England had officially declared war on Germany, Lord Lothian was invited to give a speech on how England would appreciate it if the United States would stand by its side when the real fighting would break out. Lothian received the full support of his friend Thomas W. Lamont, the Morgan banker and Pilgrims Society chairman, who arranged for Lothian to speak to a number of New York-based groups. In May 1940, Lamont became one of the members of the Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies, the most visible of the pro-interventionist lobby and pressure groups. Among the Pilgrims who were members of this committee were Nicholas Murray Butler, John W. Davis, James W. Gerard, Frank L. Polk, Bishop James de Wolf Perry and Adlai Stevenson.  In December 1941, with the Pearl Harbor attack, followed a few days later with a declaration of war by Germany, these establishment figures got what they needed.
It is clear that by the middle of 1939 members of the Anglo-American Establishment were on the same page as Franklin Delano Roosevelt when it came to his pro-interventionist policies, but still they couldn’t help intensely disliking the man. For years they had tried to get rid of him, mainly for reasons having to do with the New Deal.
The Pilgrims, FDR and American fascism
“At a garden party at the British embassy in Washington [in 1939], the king and queen sat up on a porch in remote splendor with several private citizens–Jack Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, Jr., and Mrs. Cornelius Vanderbilt. Only two New Dealers [working under President Franklin Roosevelt], James Farley and Cordell Hull, were allowed to join them. … It didn’t help the House of Morgan, for it reinforced the old stereotype of the firm’s being in league with the British Crown. … In late August 1939, Jack Morgan and King George VI were shooting together at Balmoral in Scotland, complaining about the bird shortage, when Europe suddenly mobilized for war. Like sovereigns retreating to their respective capitals, the king returned to London and Jack to Wall Street.”
– 1990, Ron Chernow, ‘The House of Morgan’, p. 440
FDR had been elected president of the United States in 1933 when the Great Depression was at its worst. About 25 percent of the population was out of work with millions living on the streets. Roosevelt immediately introduced his far reaching New Deal program, which included the crippling of stock speculation, the setting up watch dog agencies for banks, and the introduction of large scale construction projects for the unemployed. The New Deal further established a national minimum wage, limited a regular workweek to 40 hours, abolished child labor, introduced social security, supported the homeless, and prevented employers from hindering unionization. To finance these projects Roosevelt had to take the United States off the gold standard.
Needless to say, the big interests were horrified with this New Deal program. Almost immediately they began to make plans to get rid of Roosevelt; plans which were exposed in detail by General Smedley Butler before the 1934 McCormack-Dickstein Committee.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, president of the United States from 1933 to 1945. FDR fought Wall Street and the big industrialists over the New Deal, their policy of isolationism and the attempts to implement an American form of fascism. Conspiracy literature often tries to point out that FDR brought the U.S. into World War II, first by cutting off the Japanese from American oil and steel; then by allowing the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor. This last accusation may well be true, and while some things can’t be talked right, consider also what may have happened if the United States would not have entered World War II. There wouldn’t have been a D-Day; Germany and Japan may well have taken over half of Asia, and with the support of the Arabs (which they had) received unlimited amounts of oil; the British Empire – with no U.S. support – would likely either have turned fascist or would have gone down, while the American bankers and industrialists would likely have been a lot more successful at establishing their own form of fascism (a total suppression of the labor force and of democratic rights). Latin America already was largely fascist and Africa would have been plundered for its resources. No, although he may have had his flaws, FDR’s policy of intervention was the right one. It was only at the last moment that he received support from a significant portion of the Anglo-American Establishment, after they had come to realize that the British public wouldn’t tolerate an Anglo-German peace and that Hitler could not be counted on to leave Britain alone forever. Butler detailed how in July 1933 he had been approached by Gerald C. MacGuire, a Wall Street bond salesman with a position in the American Legion. MacGuire and his financiers had devised a whole scheme through which Butler would be able to make a speech to the American Legion in favor of the gold standard. The excuse MacGuire gave was that he and his associates didn’t want the veterans of World War I to receive the bonus they had been promised by Congress to be handed to them in devaluated currency at some point in the future. Butler knew that something was wrong here, but tried to play along for a while, leading to MacGuire giving him certain details of who were behind the scheme. It turned out that behind MacGuire were men as Grayson M. P. Murphy, head of the family’s brokerage firm at which MacGuire was employed and also director of the Guarantee Trust; Robert S. Clark, a wealthy banker whom Butler had known in the past; James H. Perkins, chairman of the Rockefeller’s National City Bank; men from the Morgan Bank; and John W. Davis, chair of Davis, Polk and Wardwell, chief attorney of J. P. Morgan & Co. and founding president of the Council on Foreign Relations.  And important for this article: Murphy’s son was a Pilgrim, Davis was president of the Pilgrims, the men heading the Morgan Bank were Pilgrims, and Perkins almost certainly was another Pilgrim.
In the end Butler refused to make one or more speeches in favor of the gold standard, but by flooding a meeting with telegrams the bankers still managed to have the American Legion adopt a formal resolution in favor of returning to the gold standard. Roosevelt would not allow himself to be pressured by the legion however; the United States remained off the gold standard.
During late 1933 and and early 1934 Butler didn’t hear anything from MacGuire, who until then had regularly contacted him. In the spring and summer of 1934 Butler did receive two cards from MacGuire: one from France; the other from Berlin, making Butler wonder what MacGuire was up to this time. In August 1934 MacGuire approached Butler in person again, the reason being that “his group” still considered the general the only person who effectively could rally hundreds of thousands
of veterans behind him towards a common goal. The “Morgan group” had reluctantly agreed, even though they really preferred the less-popular Douglas MacArthur. During this latest conversation MacGuire explained to Butler what he had been doing in the past year. It turned out that by this time more was in the planning than just the return of the gold standard. According to MacGuire, after the American Legion’s gold standard resolution had been rejected by Roosevelt, his financial backers had sent him to Europe to study the veterans paramilitary organizations of France, Germany and Italy. MacGuire appeared to be quite fond of Mussolini’s Blackshirts and Hitler’s SA and SS, but stated that he instead had recommended to his backers that the model of the French far-right league the Croix de Feu be adopted for an American version of these paramilitary veterans’ forces. According to MacGuire, the press would announce the creation of this “superorganization” in two or three weeks. He further hinted that its founders would include some of the most important men in the United States and that former New York Governor and Democratic presidential candidate Al Smith – who had become an employee of the Du Pont family – would be among these founders
At that point Butler had already concluded that a lot of what MacGuire had told him was true, not the least because the many predictions MacGuire made had a tendency to come true. This latest prediction was no exception. Two weeks after his discussion with MacGuire, newspapers reported on the founding of the American Liberty League. Investigative author Jules Archer, who documented the whole affair in great detail, wrote:
“Butler’s eyes widened when he read that the treasurer of the American Liberty League was none other than MacGuire’s own boss, Grayson M.-P. Murphy, and one of its financiers was Robert S. Clark. Heading and directing the organization were Du Pont and J.P. Morgan and Company men.Morgan attorney John W. Davis was a member of the National Executive Committee-the same Davis that Clark had identified as author of the gold-standard speech MacGuire had tried to get Butler to make to the American Legion convention in Chicago.
“Heavy contributors to the American Liberty League included the Pitcairn family (Pittsburgh Plate Glass), Andrew W. Mellon Associates, Rockefeller Associates, E.F. Hutton Associates, William S. Knudsen (General Motors), and the Pew family (Sun Oil Associates). J. Howard Pew, longtime friend and supporter of Robert Welch, who later founded the John Birch Society, was a generous patron, along with other members of the Pew family, of extremist right-wing causes. Other directors of the league included Al Smith and John J. Raskob.
“Two organizations affiliated with the league were openly Fascist and antilabor. One was the Sentinels of the Republic, financed chiefly by the Pitcairn family and J. Howard Pew. Its members labeled the New Deal “Jewish Communism” and insisted “the old line of Americans of $1,200.00 a year want a Hitler.”
“The other was the Southern Committee to Uphold the Constitution, which the conservative Baltimore Sun described as “a hybrid organization financed by northern money, but playing on the Ku Klux Klan prejudices of the south.” Its sponsor, John H. Kirby, collaborated in anti-Semitic drives against the New Deal with the Reverend Gerald L. K. Smith, leader of the first Silver Shirt Squad of American storm troopers.
“”The brood of anti-New Deal organizations spawned by the Liberty League,” the New York Post subsequently charged, “are in turn spawning fascism.”” 
After reading about the founding of the American Liberty League, Butler decided to have someone come in and confirm his story. He contacted an old friend, Paul Comly French, an investigative journalist for the Philadelphia Record whose articles also appeared in the New York Post. After the blessing of Philadelphia Record city editor Tom O’Neil, French began his effort to confirm Butler’s story. Butler at some point introduced French to MacGuire, leading to a two hour discussion between the latter two without Butler being present.
Butler and French were invited to testify to the McCormack-Dickstein Committee on November 20, 1934. Judging from French’s testimony, MacGuire had been more forthcoming to French than he had ever dared to be to Butler. French testified:
“We need a fascist government in this country, he insisted, to save the nation from the Communists who want to tear it down and wreck all that we have built in America. The only men who have the patriotism to do it are the soldiers and Smedley Butler is the ideal leader. He could organize a million men overnight.
“During the conversation he told me he had been in Italy and Germany during the summer of 1934 and had made an intensive study of the background of the Nazi and Fascist movements and how the veterans had played a part in them. He said he had obtained enough information on the Fascist and Nazi movements and of the part played by the veterans, to properly set one up in this country…
“He [MacGuire] had a very brilliant solution of the unemployment situation. He said that Roosevelt had muffed it terrifically, but that he had the plan. He had seen it in Europe. It was a plan that Hitler had used in putting all of the unemployed in labor camps or barracks-enforced labor. That would solve it overnight, and he said that when they got into power, that is what they would do; that that was the ideal plan.
“He had another suggestion to register all persons all over the country, like they do in Europe. He said that would stop a lot of the Communist agitators who were running around the country.” 
Butler and French were also supported by the testimony of James Van Zandt, head of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. After having been given information by MacGuire, Butler had warned Van Zandt that he too would probably be approached by the fascist plotters. At the hearing Van Zandt testified that this had indeed been the case, and that he had seen some of the data on fascist organizations MacGuire had taken back with him from Europe. Van Zandt further testified that not only he himself, Douglas MacArthur and Hanford MacNider had been approached (as Butler had stated), but also Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., a founder of the American Legion. MacArthur and Roosevelt would vehemently deny that they had been approached by any coup plotters, but this actually means very little. MacArthur would later become a close associate of the anti-communist cult leader Sun Myung Moon, while his cousin – another Moon associate – would become deeply involved in the darkest aspects of the fascist international. Theodore Roosevelt, Jr.’s family were also extreme right wing anti-communist crusaders who supported the post war Nazi networks and rose to top positions in the CIA. For more information about MacArthur and his cousin MacArthur II, read PEHI’s ‘Beyond the Dutroux Affair’ (now ISGP) article. For more information on the descendants of Theodore Roosevelt, read on.
When questioning Gerald MacGuire in front of their committee, John McCormack and Samuel Dickstein found out he couldn’t present an alibi on numerous occasions. The committee additionally found evidence that MacGuire had written detailed reports on Mussolini’s Blackshirts, Hitler’s Brownshirts, the French Croix de Feu and a related fascist group from the Netherlands to Robert Clark and Clark’s attorney, Albert G. Christmas. But even though the initial hearings and investigation clearly showed their had been a fascist coup in the making in the United States, the committee would fail to subpoena the powerful bankers and industrialists mentioned during the hearings. In the weeks following the testimonies of Butler, French, Van Zandt and MacGuire, the committee asked to be renewed in order to continue the investigation. The House of Representatives decided to let the committee expire instead, shutting it down in January 1935. The whole affair would soon be forgotten. Many years later, during an interview with Jules Archer on September 17, 1971, John McCormack would summarize the view of the committee at the time:
“There was no doubt that General Butler was telling the truth. We believed his testimony one hundred percent. He was a great, patriotic American in every respect.”
“Millions were at stake when Clark and the others got the Legion to pass that resolution on the gold standard in 1933. When Roosevelt refused to be pressured by it, and went even further off the gold standard, those fellows got desperate and decided to look into European methods, with the idea of introducing them to America. They sent Macguire to Europe to study the Fascist organizations.”
“The way I figure it, we did our job in the committee by exposing the plot, and then it was up to the Department of Justice to do their job-to take it from there. I have no knowledge why the Attorney General did not pursue this matter except that most likely it was deemed politically inadvisable.” 
In line with some of the rumors in the days of the committee, McCormack stated in his biography that he suspected that President Roosevelt himself had supported the cover-up. A public prosecution of the nation’s most powerful men would have added tremendous burdens to Roosevelt’s already overcrowded schedule (not to mention the doom it may have spelled to the nation’s economy). The affair could also have split Roosevelt’s own party, as a number of leading Democrats were allied with the fascists. McCormack reasoned that it may have been enough for Roosevelt to thwart the plot and keep the suspects under surveillance. This is actually a strategy that has also been attributed to Roosevelt by John Loftus.
There is evidence that the big interests were not deterred by the Butler affair and that they continued their intrigues against Roosevelt. Cornelius “Neil” Vanderbilt, Jr., the son of a Pilgrims Society executive who has been named on several occasions in this article, published his biography in 1959. In this biography Neil described how he had decided to become a reporter – a career move his parents did not support – and how by 1932 he had become an unofficial informer to his good friend Franklin Delano Roosevelt. In this capacity Neil traveled around the country, listening to the word on the street, and regularly met with world leaders (his association with the U.S. president was a great way to get interviews). Vanderbilt further described how the entire “old 400” and their associates absolutely despised the president and did everything they could to get rid of him.
In 1936, for example, Neil was told over dinner how Ogden Mills and Andrew Mellon – respectively a member and an executive member of the Pilgrims Society – were planning to tie “tie [Roosevelt’s] hands financially, very, very soon”. An excerpt of Neil’s account to the private secretary of President Roosevelt:
“I see that John D. Jr. [Rockefeller, a Pilgrim] has crawled back again upon the band wagon, which reminds me that Tuesday evening I took Mrs. Winthrop Aldrich [her husband was a Pilgrim] in to dinner here at the house, and after dinner Winthrop spent the better part of one-half hour in discussing how men of affairs should teach the President the lesson that the minority of 17 million who voted for Landon [anti-New Deal; claimed that FDR was subverting the Constitution] was a strenuous minority [big business] and would oppose any of his progressive, radical [read: “communist”] plans…
“Last night I took Lady Granard in to dinner. She is Ogden Mills’ sister, as you probably know, and her husband is Master of the Horse at the British [Royal] Court. She was very abusive and extremely nasty in all of her many references to the Chief [FDR] and said that her brother and Mr. Mellon and others were formulating plans to tie his hands financially, very, very soon.
” I thought these things might be of interest to the President before he went south and am sending them to you in the strictest confidence.” 
Much more damning was Neil’s account of a plot being hatched to oust Roosevelt which counted the involvement of his mother’s associates. Neil placed the hatching of this plot around 1940, a full six to seven years after the testimonies of Butler, French and Van Zandt. Neil didn’t give names, but it is known that his mother knew virtually everyone in the Anglo-American establishment, including the Morgans, Rockefellers and Harrimans–so it appears that some of the same interests were involved as those mentioned to the McCormack-Dickstein Committee in late 1933. Neil:
“No small part of my duty as a “public ear” for FDR was to report to him opinions expressed in Newport and at the Fifth Avenue house by people who were my mother’s guests, because these people often represented important forces or areas of influence…
“The 1940 election, breaking the third-term precedent, confirmed FDR as the people’s choice to carry on through the war years… but many people were not pleased, especially those traditionalists who were outraged by the overthrow of the third-term precedent which they had counted on to rid them of “That Man.” …
“On the fringes of this group were the anti-New Dealers whose prejudices were already roused, certain wealthy and influential Southerners, certain Catholic admirers of Franco, certain sections of the press… These people were no less intense in their anti-Roosevelt feeling, and they could be depended on to spread or originate rumors and fan the flames of hate, although they lacked the power and unity of the hard core of financial and industrial opposition.
“In addition to these fellow travelers in the anti-Roosevelt movement, there were also a few who acted as liaison with the hard core of opposition that really meant business. And some of them, I was sorry to discover, were to be met at my mother’s house–wealthy industrialists, internationalists of the royalist persuasion…
“For years my father had been too ill to see his old friends, and so he never knew that relatives of a wealthy Midwesterner, whom Mother never liked but who was kind to me in my childhood, were involved in what I now had to consider a real conspiracy. Finally, from one of my oldest friends and colleagues in Washington, to whom I was indebted for past favors, I got confirmation of what I had learned in New Port and New York.
“I use the word conspiracy; I really am talking of a plot–a serious, long-discussed plan to -shall I say- capture the President…
“One problem was whether to tell FDR. It was no time to add to his worries. At length, torn by this question, I talked to Mrs. Roosevelt about it–this was late in the day, months after the investigations began. She promised to tell FDR at Hyde Park, and she did, only to discover, as she told me later, that he had known all along…
“So what happened? Well, as you know, the President never was captured by the enemy. Neither was any conspiracy exposed, with public scandals and punishments. When the facts were known, I was permitted to call my friend, and another army man I knew well, and offer a tip that all the plans were known. Those in the cabal were not disgraced or downgraded, but they weren’t promoted either.” 
Since it was funded by the largest banking and industrial fortunes, fascism in the United States had many heads. Next to the American Liberty League, there was the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Industrial Information Committee, and the National Economy League. These organizations were all funded and headed by the same interests. Smaller groupings of almost exclusively anti-semitic fascists included the Crusaders, the Sentinels of the Republic, the Southern Committee to Uphold the Constitution, the Order of ’76, the Ku Klux Klan, and the KKK’s Black Legion. Like the much larger and more respectable American Legion, these groups were often used to break labor strikes with the argument that the laborers were part of a communist takeover of the United States. George Seldes in his 1943 book ‘Facts and Fascism’ detailed a lot of these organizations. He also covered the terrible repression of labor unions by the major industrialists who at the same time funded and promoted fascism.
Anti-Eastern Establishment propaganda
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.” 
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 the biggest opponent 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.”
The year Edith wrote this column she had written a brief history of the Illuminati. An excerpt:
“Before the adoption of our Constitution socialist conspirators sought to establish a “classless society” in this country and throughout the world. They were members of the Order of Illuminati…
“Today our country is infiltrated by socialist conspirators, a modern-day Order of Illuminati, who believe they are entitled “to set aside the ordinary maxims of society” in order to bring about a “universal republic.” Again, vigilant citizens are needed to destroy these plans for “ruling society.” This is Your responsibility!” 
As you may have guessed by now, Edith was a rabid anti-communist who did not care one bit about the ordinary working man. One of the telling examples is that even in the late 1960s and early 1970s she organized pro-Vietnam War rallies in Washington, alongside Rev. Carl McIntyre, who at the time was considered a pillar of Presbyterian fundamentalism.  Looking at Edith’s family something else becomes very clear: she not only worked for the CIA; her family was the CIA. A history:
Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., Edith’s uncle, has been named earlier in this article. This person was one of the founders of the American Legion in 1919, an organization which specialized in the violent suppression of labor unions under the rationale that these laborers were part of a communist plot to take over the United States. Theodore, Jr. was also among those mentioned as having been approached by the fascist cabal of bankers and industrialists who wanted to take away the presidency from FDR. Theodore ridiculed the plot after it had been exposed. 
Archibald Roosevelt, one of Theodore, Jr.’s brothers and the father of Edith, was an executive of the Sinclair Oil Company, which is known for having discussed cartel agreements with Mussolini.  The son of Theodore, Jr., Theodore III, worked for the Du Pont company from 1936 to 1941, which was another notorious cartel negotiator, in this case with German industrialists, the Japanese Zaibatsu and the pro-fascist Imperial Chemical Industries in Great Britain.
After World War II, Archibald, who had passionate dislike of black people, became a member of the John Birch Society and a founder of the controversial Veritas Foundation, both of them extreme right wing organizations which tried to root out communist and socialist elements in society. Archibald was a close friend of the Dulles family and their children knew each other well. Both the Roosevelt and Dulles families also were closely associated with the (openly fascist) Lindbergh family. 
Besides his own children and those of the Dulleses, Archibald also looked after his nephew Kermit Roosevelt II (whose father was an alcoholic and committed suicide). This was the same Kermit who in 1953, as a high level CIA officer, was involved in overthrowing the ruler of Iran in favor of the Shah. Several years before Kermit had supported Gamal Abdel Nasser’s coup in Egypt. After Nasser had come to power Allen Dulles and Kermit recruited General Reinhard Gehlen to build up Nasser’s security apparatus. Gehlen sent the famous SS general Otto Skorzeny to Egypt and by 1956 there was a small colony of several hundred former Nazi officers and scientists working in Egypt. Pressure from the Israelis eventually made these former Nazis leave  and it seems in later years the CIA found Israel to be a much more reliable ally than Nasser or any of the other Arab countries.
Archibald’s son (Edith’s brother), Archibald, Jr., was a CIA station chief in Beirut (1947-1949), Istanbul (1951-1953), Madrid (1958), and London (1962-1966). In between he worked as the chief of the Near East section of the CIA’s Voice of America (1949-1950), and at the State Department (1953-1958 and 1966-1974). He officially resigned from the CIA in 1974. But what did Archibald, Jr. do then? Of all the things he could have done, he became a vice president of Chase Manhattan Bank and a director of international relations at the bank’s Washington office. In these functions he served as an advisor to David Rockefeller and accompanied him on trips to the Middle East. 
There are more peculiarities about the Roosevelt family. In 1948 Edith, age 20, married the 49-year-old Alexander G. Barmine.  This Barmine used to be a Soviet diplomat and general who defected to the United States in 1937. He wrote anti-Stalin articles which were published in the New York Times, Reader’s Digest and the Saturday Evening Post. At some point in the 1940s or 1950s Barmine was appointed head of the Russian branch of the CIA’s Voice of America. He held this post until 1964.  However, well before his career at the Voice of America came to end Edith had divorced him on charges of “cruelty and nonsupport”. 
When discussing Edith and her writings, two things come to mind:
It is not all unreasonable to assume that Edith worked for the CIA, for the simple reason that half of her family were top-level CIA officers. The fascist credentials of her family are equally impeccable.
Could it be that all these people on the internet talking about a New World Order and a United Nations-led world government are actually repeating CIA disinformation?
Edith was not an exception in terms of her writings. Since World War II there have been many extreme right and and anti-semitic conspiracy authors who focused on exposing the Anglo-American Establishment. The common characteristics of these authors include rabid anti-communism and anti-socialism, an anti-United Nations attitude, in favor of extreme isolationism, and an excessive focus on Jewish bankers and Zionism. Not all of these authors were anti-semitic, but they certainly focused almost exclusively on the more liberal Anglo-American Establishment and its alleged link to communism at the expense of the extreme right, anti-communist factions which have been equally conspiratorial–if not more so. This historical trend shouldn’t come as a total surprise, as the works of these conspiracy authors were regularly funded by extreme right-wing businessmen not part of the Anglo-American Establishment.
One of the first widely-known conspiracy authors was Nesta Webster. She is credited with having inspired many later conspiracy authors and is even said to have influenced Winston Churchill’s thoughts on the French Revolution. However, it shouldn’t be forgotten that Webster was a member of the British Union of Fascists and the equally fascist Link group. In the 1920 and 1930s she wrote about the evils of “Jewish Communism” and how this was related to the 18th century Illuminati plot. Another example is Ezra Pound, mentor to the well known conspiracy author Eustace Mullins. Pound was a prominent Italian fascist who was angry with the bankers of the Anglo-American Establishment for having allied the United States and Great Britain against the fascist nations. It’s not a surprise then that Mullins took over some of these ideas and incorporated them in his books ‘Secrets of the Federal Reserve’ and ‘The World Order’. Although the books paint an interesting picture of history it is not particularly convincing in many cases. Mullins equates Roosevelt’s New Deal and “Truman’s Socialism” with communism, promotes the narrow-minded isolationist view, and seems to think every right-wing or fascist movement that has ever existed is just another communist or “New World Order” deception–how convenient for the fascists running the conspiracy movement.
The extreme right conspiracy movement really took off in the 1950s, around the time of Senator McCarthy’s anti-communist crusade. The well-known John Birch Society was founded in 1958. It was organized and headed by influential right wing, anti-communist reactionaries and appears to have been nothing more than an extreme right big business/intelligence front.  The fascist Willis Carto organized his Liberty Lobby in 1955. Carto later became a leading light in the Institute for Historical Review (which denies the holocaust) and such conspiracy magazine’s as The Spotlight and American Free Press, both of which heavily focus on radical Zionism. Mullins’s first book was published in 1953. The House investigation of tax-exempt foundations, headed by Carroll Reece, made headlines in 1954. The committee’s chief investigator, Norman Dodd, would later speak about the pro-communist policies of such establishment foundations as Carnegie, Rockefeller and Ford. At the same time it’s worth noting that Reece was a isolationist during World War II. In 1955 William Guy Carr’s ‘Pawns in the Game’ was published, another anti-communist conspiracy classic, even though it stands stiff from the reactionary Catholic bias, not to mention that it is highly anti-semitic. 
By the 1970s a number of other authors and activists had become involved in the crusade against the Eastern Establishment and its supposed pro-communist bias. Among them was Cleon Skousen. Skousen published the well known book ‘The Naked Capitalist’ in 1970, which was a review of Carroll Quigley’s writings about the Round Table. The book gives a detailed account of the Eastern Establishment, but at the same time tries to link it to a communist world conspiracy. This is not surprising since Skousen was a long time John Bircher and a supporter of cult leader Sun Myung Moon.  In the 1980s he was a member of the ultraconservative Council for National Policy. Skousen’s spin on the John F. Kennedy assassination should immediately have given him away as a right-wing propagandist:
“In 1963 the Left-wing forces induced President Kennedy to recommend the passage of a whole series of hard-core socialist proposals and these were soon dumped into the hoppers of Congress. However, there were sufficient Americans awake at the grass-roots level to protest against these measures and demand that Congress reject them. That is what happened. Even under Presidential pressure the Democratic-nominated Congress refused to pass these bills. The frustrated Establishment press turned the heat on Congress but to no avail. By September the prestige of President Kennedy had taken a serious drop in Establishment circles and there was some question as to what might happen if JFK decided to seek a second term. Then suddenly, on November 22, President Kennedy was assassinated by a Marxist revolutionary, Lee Harvey Oswald, who was connected with Castro’s main Communist front-organization here in the United States…
“Establishment spokesmen such as Earl Warren immediately blamed the President’s murder on the “Radical Right,” but when the arrest of Oswald revealed that it had been done by the Radical Left, the Left-wing machinery went into high gear to assure the American people that Oswald could not, by any stretch of the imagination, be part of an international Communist plot. He must be accepted as merely an isolated psychopathic individual who acted on his own initiative. To prevent any independent investigation by anti-Communist Democrats and Republicans, the Communist Daily Worker suggested that President Johnson appoint a special commission to do the investigation with Earl Warren as chairman. Four days later that was precisely what President Johnson did. The real story of the Kennedy assassination was soon buried beneath an Establishment-supervised white-wash designed to pacify the American people.
“When Congress convened in 1964, President Johnson obliged the Left-wing elements of his party by exploiting the emotional climate resulting from the President’s death and demanded that the Congress pass the Kennedy bills which they had rejected the previous spring.” 
What Skousen did here was to take the accusations of a cover up – which in reality had a lot to do with anti-Castro businessmen and CIA officials working with the mafia – and blame the Eastern-Establishment and their so-called communist allies as those responsible for it. Quite a dirty little trick.
One of the more prominent authors from the 1970s writing about the Eastern Establishment was Gary Allen. Allen’s best known book is ‘None Dare Call It Conspiracy’, published in 1971. As expected, the book is anti-communist, anti-socialist and anti- Eastern Establishment. Interestingly, a review of Congressman John G. Schmitz appeared on the back of the book. Schmitz, a John Bircher whose hero was Senator McCarthy, was a dangerous anti-communist and anti-socialist fascist. The back cover also shows that Dan Smoot, who used to be an assistant to J. Edgar Hoover at the FBI, supported this book. Smoot was an activist devoted to countering socialist and communist influences in American society and had written the anti-Eastern Establishment book ‘The Invisible Government’ in 1962. Like Smoot, Allen was associated with the notorious Hunt family.  The earlier-mentioned Norman Dodd also embraced Allen’s book.
There are many more examples of hard-right, anti-communist and anti-Eastern Establishment propaganda which many people think are honest and largely complete exposes of the forces shaping the planet.
In 1990 William T. Still published his book ‘New World Order: The Ancient Plan of Secret Societies’, another run-of-the-mill anti-communist conspiracy book aimed at the Christian Conservative movement. On the back cover of Still’s book we find the following review:
“Regardless of your views about the coming of a world government, Bill Still’s new book will make you reassess the odds. He traces the historic role of secret societies and their influence on the ‘Great Plan’ to erase nationalism in preparation for global dictatorship. He allows the facts to speak for themselves as he sounds an ominous warning for the 21st Century.”
This review was written by Dr. D. James Kennedy. Dr. Kennedy was the founder and senior pastor of the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, who mobilized people against abortion, gay people, and the theory of evolution. What’s more relevant in this case is that Kennedy has been on the advisory board of the low-profile Maldon Institute, an extreme-right, US-based, anti-communist think tank funded by Richard Mellon Scaife, the Anti-Defamation League and the B’nai B’rith.  It’s fair to say that Scaife has worked in cooperation with the CIA  while the ADL and B’nai B’rith work together with Israel’s Foreign Office and the Mossad.  Other officers of the Maldon Institute have included Jack Abramoff, a shady, anti-communist hardliner once involved in Iran-Contra; John H. Rees, an author and activist who infiltrated left-wing organizations and later acted as spy for the Western Goals Foundation; W. Raymond Wannall, a former president of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers (directors of the national organization have included George H.W. Bush, Gerald Ford, Frank Carlucci, Bobby Ray Inman, William H. Webster, and James Woolsey) who as assistant director of the FBI led a surveillance program against leftist elements in American society; and Robert Moss, an MI6 agent and leading Pinay Cercle member who published large amounts of anti-communist and anti-liberal propaganda. An EIR author has also claimed that Richard G. Stilwell, another hard-right Cercle visitor with numerous intelligence connections, was an officer of the Maldon Institute at some point. 
One year after William Still’s ‘New World Order’, Pat Robertson published his similarly-titled book ‘The New World Order’. In the book Robertson spells out the story of the Eastern Establishment in great detail, but of course not without the anti-communist and anti-socialist slant similar to Edith Kermit Roosevelt and other authors.
“Keep in mind, when speaking of the CFR, the Washington Post, the New York Times, or Harvard University, that these are not left-wing, pinko organizations. They are instead Establishment organizations that desire a one-world government. Many among them feel that supporting world socialism in one of its forms will facilitate their own long-range goals… They run huge banks, multinational corporations, the nation’s financial system, the State Department, the Treasury Department, and the better part of the entire world… The CIA during most of the years since its creation has been under CFR control, starting with Allen Dulles…
“During the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, more than sixty CFR members held top-policy positions… Under Richard Nixon the number of CFR members in major policy positions leapt to a hundred, and the story of their selection is mind-boggling [states that Nelson Rockefeller and William Rogers were key in the selection process]… Perhaps the most blatant exercise of the power of the Establishment occurred in the selection of their 1976 presidential candidate [Carter, who was sponsored by the Trilateral Commission]…
“Of course, the present United Nations organization is actually the creation of the CFR and is housed on land in Manhattan donated to it by the family of current CFR chairman David Rockefeller… For better or worse, the United Nations as we now have it, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the Bretton Woods monetary agreement were not the work of the United States government, per se, but that of the members of the Council on Foreign Relations carrying out the stated (and perhaps unstated) goals of that organization…
“In 1970 a young Polish intellectual named Zbigniew Brezinski [sic] foresaw the rising economic power of Japan and postwar Europe. Brezinski idealized the theories of Karl Marx. In his book, Between Two Ages, as in subsequent writings, he argued that balance-of-power politics was out and world-order politics was in. The initial world order was to be trilateral economic linkage between Japan, Europe, and the United States. David Rockefeller funded Brezinski and called together an organization, named the Trilateral Commission, with Brezinski as its first executive secretary and director.” 
In his book Robertson:
equates FDR’s New Deal with communism.
equates the modern “liberal” press with communism.
voices skepticism over the Pearl Harbor attack which dragged the United States into World War II.
is critical of U.S. war strategies in North Korea and Vietnam, which limited the scope of the war and made a victory over communism impossible.
states his belief that the KGB was behind the 1981 assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II.
supports the testimony of Soviet defector Anatoliy Golitsyn, who still claims that the Soviet Union’s split with China and its demise in 1990 are a carefully crafted ploy to deceive the West.
claims Iraq was a “Soviet client state”, without mentioning U.S. weapons sales to the same country.
states the United States purposely allowed Saddam to invade Kuwait in 1990.
states that the United Nations, an Establishment organ, is out to destroy Israel by pressuring it to relinquish the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
These days almost everyone knows Pat Robertson is a world-class religious fundamentalist. His comments on radio and television have stirred up controversy on numerous occasions. In 2005 he called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez, the leader of Venezuela, supposedly because Chavez opened up southern America to communist and Arab terrorist influence. In 2006 Robertson claimed that Sharon’s stroke may have been retribution from God for the prime minister’s recent drive to cede more land to the Palestinians. He also claimed God may have been responsible for Rabin’s death for similar reasons. These are just two of many examples showing Robertson’s extremist views. Robertson has also become notorious for his predictions – supposedly conferred to him by God himself – on coming natural disasters and terrorist attacks, all of which failed to manifest.
Robertson was a founder of Moral Majority (today the Christian Coalition) with the earlier-mentioned Dr. D. James Kennedy and the equally notorious Rev. Jerry Falwell. In the
Honest exposés or extreme-right propaganda? 1990s, Falwell was a major funder and distributor of ‘The Clinton Chronicles’, a video in which allegations were made that Clinton protected a ring of drug smugglers during his time as Arkansas governor. Several days after 9/11, Falwell and Robertson had the nerve to claim that the “liberal civil liberties groups, feminists, homosexuals and abortion rights supporters” were largely to blame for the terrorist attack. Interestingly, Falwell owed a million dollars to the owner of a flight school which trained the most important hijackers (just as interesting, the hijackers would take down the biggest symbol of the might of the Eastern Establishment while the Neocons – supported by Falwell and Robertson – should have been among the major suspects behind the attack). 
In 1994 G. Edward Griffin published his well
known book ‘The Creature from Jekyll Island’ about the founding of the Federal Reserve System, a popular topic among the authors discussed in this section. He had earlier produced the Capitalist Conspiracy video (1971) and interviewed Norman Dodd (1982). Griffin was a long time member of the John Birch Society and at least one of his works was supported by the Western Goals Foundation , a privately funded intelligence group allied with the World Anti-Communist League and the John Birch Society. Western Goals was headed by such notorious reactionaries as Roy Cohn, General John Singlaub, Edward Teller and Admiral Thomas Moorer.  Its gatherings were attended by hundreds of hard-right, anti-communist generals and a number of allied Congressmen and think tank executives. 
The anti-communist, anti-socialist, anti-liberal, and anti-Eastern Establishment crusade continues to this day. Over the decades it has shifted from a largely anti-semitic stance to one usually in support of radical Zionism, and since 9/11 has included a strong anti-Arab bias. These crusaders include many persons surrounding online newspapers as WorldNetDaily and Newsmax. Think in this case of Christopher W. Ruddy, Joseph Farah, Jonathan Falwell (son of), Jeffrey R. Nyquist, Jerome R. Corsi, Charles R. Smith, and others. Not all of the authors and newspaper owners are entirely on the same page. Many distance themselves from New World Order conspiracies, especially the more prominent ones. Among these is Ann Coulter (who is admired by the WorldNetDaily and Newsmax staff).
Among the small time radical right authors who are mainly known in the conspiracy community (and have not been mentioned a few lines back) are Dr. Stanley Monteith, J. Orlin Grabbe, and Joel Skousen. Skousen, as a nephew of the earlier-discussed Cleon Skousen, is particularly interesting. Not only is Joel Skousen warning that the Soviet Union is still preparing to invade the West, he can also be found on the board of “Pilots for 9/11 Truth”, an outfit which spreads the disinformation that no-757 could have hit the Pentagon. The conspiracy community has continually been infiltrated by spooks, and regularly they are anti-communist propagandists. General Albert Stubblebine and William Lewis who got involved with the 9/11 Truth movement in 2006 are two other examples. General Benton K. Partin, the explosives expert who spoke about the Oklahoma bombing and the TWA-800 crash, is another. Partin exposed the Oklahoma bombing as part of the effort to discredit Clinton. After talking about the inconsistencies in the TWA-800 crash, Partin implied a Russian submarine took it out. He then continued along the lines of Anatoliy Golitsyn with his story that both the Sino-Soviet split and the demise of the USSR were carefully crafted deceptions of the KGB. In 2006, the John Birch Society used Partin’s explosives expertise in an effort to discredit the 9/11 Truth community.
There’s much more that can be discussed about infiltrations into the conspiracy community, but the purpose of this segment is to make people understand that the conspiracies involving a United Nations-led world government, the Eastern Establishment, the Illuminati and the New World Order have been talked about for decades by hard-right propagandists. Some of it is true; some of it isn’t. You can actually learn a lot by reading the works of these propagandists, but without some outside perspective you’ll only aid one or more political agendas which may well be worse than the one of the Anglo-American Establishment. As PEHI’s articles on Le Cercle and the Dutroux Affair make clear, it is exactly this hard-right, rabidly anti-communist group which has been involved some of the deepest and darkest conspiracies imaginable.
Executive Intelligence Review, Lyndon Larouche’s major political organization, has stated on numerous occasions their belief that British aristocrats have been manipulating both the traditional Eastern Establishment as well as the pro-Zionist Neoconservatives. It must be said that EIR has the tendency to bring up very interesting information, but often discredits itself by not giving enough sources for sensational claims. Saying they have a membership list of the 1001 Club or government documents on the Synarchy, but not publishing photocopies are just two major examples (after a long search I did find one partial photocopy of a government file in an Australian EIR publication, but this is not near enough).
All in all, the authors of EIR have provided little evidence for their theory that British aristocrats are in control of both the Eastern Establishment and Neoconservatives. However, a few anomalies in the Pilgrims Society membership suggest there might just be some truth in this claim after all.
In recent years EIR published a report on New York banker John Train.  EIR related how in 1983 a group of journalists and money men had organized a number of meetings at the home of John Train in Manhattan. Among the attendants were John Rees, mentioned earlier as a person involved in Western Goals; Sol Sanders, a writer for Business Week; NBC-TV producer Pat Lynch; Wall Street Journal reporter Ellen Hume; Reader’s Digest editor Eugene Methvin, who also sat on the advisory board of American Family Foundation from 1982 to 1995; Peter Spiro of The New Republic; Chip Berlet, a onetime Washington bureau chief of High Times magazine; Dennis King, an investigative journalist who focuses on sects; Roy M. Cohn, on the advisory board of Western Goals and a rabid anti-communist with ties to the fascist underground; and Russ Bellant, apparently a propagandist along the lines of John Loftus.
During these meetings a strategy was devised to discredit Larouche by promoting the idea he was communist sympathizer. Train was described as a close associate of James Jesus Angleton and an agent of the Anglo-American aristocracy.
The claims made in this article by EIR about the anti-communist smear campaigns are very recognizable, and we have already discussed Rees’s anti-communist propaganda activities on behalf of the Western Goals Foundation. EIR went on to detail some of Train’s connections to Britain and a number of aristocratic spooks. What EIR apparently didn’t know was that John Train has been a member of the Pilgrims of the United States since at least the early 1980s, and that as a newly-appointed executive member in 1996 he was highly influential in the 1996-1997 period in reorganizing the U.S. Pilgrims, assuring the society’s continued existence after Hugh Bullock had been heading it for 43 years.  What EIR apparently also didn’t know, but which additionally confirms his intelligence connections, is that Train was a financial advisor to John Hay Whitney during the 1960s and 1970s.  Whitney, a vice president of the Pilgrims Society, was one of the businessmen the CIA turned to when they wanted an institute to be financed by private funds.  Whitney was a friend of the British royal family, a close associate of the Rockefellers and a trustee of the Carnegie Foundation. In other words, Train’s credentials as “a proud member of the Anglophile oligarchy”, as EIR put it, are quite well-established.
The reason Train is important enough to be mentioned separately. in this article is not only his intelligence connections, but the fact that his Train Foundation has counted the involvement of leading Neoconservatives.
Train has not been the only prominent Pilgrim in the Train Foundation. Chairman of the Train Foundation since 2004 is the 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. Pilgrim Anne B. Sloane is president of the Train Foundation. She was executive vice president of the International Development Foundation and a director of the Inter American Foundation. Additionally, Pilgrims executive John R. Drexel IV used to be director of sales and marketing at Train, Smith Counsel from 1991 to 1993.
As for the Neoconservative ties, founding treasurer of the Northcote Parkinson Fund, as the Train Foundation used to be called, was the prominent Neoconservative Midge Decter.  In 1981 Decter was one of the organizers of the Committee for the Free World, which was funded by the Scaife Foundations, John M. Olin Foundation (named after a Pilgrim)), and the Smith Richardson Foundation. She shared responsibility with Donald Rumsfeld, about whom she wrote a biography. Decter is a trustee of the Heritage Foundation and one of the signatories to Statement of Principles for the PNAC. She is married to Norman Podhoretz (served in the United States Army (1953-1955) as an enlistee with the U.S. Army Security Agency; editor in chief of the Neoconservative Commentary magazine 1960-1995 and often referred to as one of the “Godfathers of Neoconservatism”; one of the original signatories of PNAC; senior foreign policy advisor to Rudy Giuliani in his presidential campaign). John Podhoretz and Rachel Decter are among her children. John served as speechwriter to former U.S. President Ronald Reagan as well as former President George H.W. Bush. He also served in the capacity of special assistant to White House [anti-] Drug Czar William Bennett. Rachel Decter married Elliott Abrams, another ultra right wing PNAC supporter, in 1980.
Midge Decter’s involvement in such a dominant Pilgrims institute is rather strange, as the Pilgrims in general are not great supporters of the state of Israel. Let’s take a look at some of these other anomalies.
Probably the most notorious British Pilgrim is Lord Alun Chalfont. Since the mid 1960s he has been coming to Pilgrims meetings, and sat on the executive board since 1979. Chalfont
Excerpts of a 1991 officers list of the Pilgrims of Great Britain. Lord Chalfont is listed. is different from most Pilgrims. Instead of being primarily a banker, he has been making a name for himself as an hard-right, anti-communist crusader who on the side sat on the board of Lazards (and IBM UK). Among his credits he has listed “various… intelligence appointments”, but this is not a particularly satisfying description of his career. We already met Chalfont in PEHI’s Cercle article where he was described as close associate of the Cercle leadership. A partial recap of his bio:
“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..”
Chalfont used to chair Zeus Security Consultants in the early 1980s with Major Peter Hamilton, a former Military Intelligence officer, as managing director. Both used to run anti-communist operations in Malaya and Cyprus. At Zeus they received assignments from British Intelligence which they in turn 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 protestors 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 protestors by setting up dummy action groups which pretended to be friendly to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the protestors at the Sizewell nuclear powerplant. 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 protestors. 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 has been 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 Committee for a Free World (alongside Decter), him chairing the second Jonathan Institute, and his reported friendship with John F. Lehman (Neocon; Secretary of the Navy; 9/11 Commission), and it becomes clear that Chalfont’s reputation as a darkly figure is quite justified.
Among Chalfont’s associates is 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, Julian Amery and Robert Moss. CIA and DIA officers and associates like Richard Mellon Scaife, William Casey, Ed Feulner, 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. Bennet’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 sounds not that strange at all.
Another rather darkly figure who has been invited to the Pilgrims in recent years is Lord William Rees-Mogg. As editor-in-chief of the Times of London from 1967 to 1981 he would be an obvious choice, even though he is Catholic. Rees-Mogg is a strange person. Senator John DeCamp, who once investigated the Franklin child abuse affair, had among his friends former CIA director and Cercle member William Colby. 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.”” 
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). 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; Pilgrims Society) 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. 
There’s also one slight anomaly sitting on the board of the Pilgrims of the United States since 1983: Alexander M. Haig, Jr. Haig has always been a militant anti-communist crusader with many intelligence connections, but at the same time, as Kissinger’s aide, he supported détente and was accepted as a member of the Trilateral Commission. He seems to be of the same breed of Zbigniew Brzezinski, Samuel P. Huntington and Admiral Thomas Moorer, all of them staunch anti-communists who believed détente was possible, but at the same time were convinced that the communist nations would not cooperate if not faced with considerable political and military pressure (the carrot and stick method). But where Brzezinski, Huntington and Moorer have always been fierce critics of Israel and its lobby in the United States, Haig in more recent years has joined the advisory board of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, became a member of Benador Associates and served on the board of Newsmax–all of them pro-Zionist.
The right-wing intelligence connections of people like Train, Chalfont, Bennett, Rees-Mogg and Haig is what obviously stands out here among many of the other Pilgrims. There are a few other right-wing Pilgrims who fit in this category, among them Lord Guthrie, an SAS veteran and Chief of the Defence Staff who joined N.M. Rothschild & Sons; and John M. Olin, founder of the right-wing, intelligence-connected Olin Foundation. While the Pilgrims Society clearly proves the existence of a liberal Anglo-American Establishment, this small number of leading Pilgrims with connections to intelligence and the Neoconservatives raises questions as to what else might be going in the “high places”; at this point we just don’t know. There are only a handful of people who have been talking about the connection between establishment and intelligence. The story of the “Georgetown Set” of Allen Dulles and Frank Wisner as a Washington-based social group with many ties to the banking establishment in New York is somewhat known. It is also known that it was opposed by elements in the Army and Navy, like General George V. Strong, Admiral Leahy and General Walter Bedell Smith, who regarded it as an unwelcome and incompetent arm of Wall Street in foreign affairs and military conflicts. In London, during World War II, the connection between Hambros and the founding of the Special Operations Executive (SOE) is quite obvious. The person in question, Sir Charles Hambro (a Pilgrim), also was a director of the Bank of England and a close friend of both the Wallenbergs in Sweden and the Morgan family in New York. Other connections between intelligence and banking have been discussed in PEHI/ISGP’s article on Le Cercle, which also discusses The 61 and the Shield committee (the latter gave intelligence briefings to Margaret Thatcher before she was elected).
In more recent years it was Gerald James who exposed the connection between British intelligence and the leading banking houses of London. James’s high-level banking and business background has already been discussed in the media section of this article, in which James’s writings were quoted about infiltration of the media by British intelligence. As for the “intelligence-banking” cabal, James wrote:
“Powerful and secretive, the group which dictated the whole covert policy [arms to Iraq affair] drew its membership less from among elected politicians, than civil servants, particularly the Cabinet Office, and from Intelligence circles, industry and the City, the very forces which brought Mrs. Thatcher to power. Some elected are nonetheless allied to the group, where political position or some area of mutual interest – the City, the Middle East – suggest it would prove beneficial. Jonathan Aitken [once head of Le Cercle] was someone who fitted into the latter category, not a member of the inner sanctum exactly, though he very much wanted to be [James had done business with Aitken]…
“Whether Margaret Thatcher was herself at the real centre of power as the leader of this inner group cannot be said for certain. However, she was more concerned for the group’s freedom to act than any other prime minister in history…
“The cabal needs the City to finance its deals and launder its funds… The passage of officers from British Intelligence to the City is a common enough occurrence and, as we have seen in the case of Sir John Cuckney (ex-MI5) and the crash of the Liverpool Docks, where there are political overtones involved, such men are especially welcome… Once in a City position, these men maintain their Intelligence connections. That is the purpose. Ideally, like Cuckney again, they build up political connections. It is this mixture of City, Intelligence and politics that constituted the profile of the cabal.
“Firms like Kleinwort Benson, where George Kennedy Young worked after retiring as deputy head of MI6, and Morgan Grenfell have had their Intelligence associations for years, as have Hambros, Schroeders, Rothschilds and Barings… Peter Middleton, chief executive of Lloyds of London, came out of the Foreign Office and MI6, and has worked for the International Division of Midland Bank [played a central role in the Iraq arms trade]…
“If you are in the senior echelons of the civil service, the City and Intelligence, you are above the law, you are all powerful…” 
Investigative journalists working for the Independent and the Observer on James’s story received death threats; one of them was was knocked to the ground by a car while walking on the pavement; another, a contact of one of the journalists, died under suspicious circumstances.  James himself received a number of threats from Stephen Kock, the alleged former head of Group 13, including that he would be “put down”.  His home was broken into on a number of occasions.
This all goes to show that there’s much about the world of intelligence we still don’t know. How many people would have guessed, for example, that left-wing organizations as the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, the National Council for Civil Liberties, Greenpeace, and Friends of the Earth all were thoroughly penetrated by British intelligence; or more alarmingly, that people connected to intelligence and the SAS have been harassing, intimidating and even assassinating leftist activists and whistleblowers?  A small number of Pilgrims have been close to this circle of right-wing intelligence people, but how this group interacts with the overall more liberal (and more anti-Zionist) Anglo-American Establishment remains a bit of a mystery.
The propaganda is true?
In the past paragraphs we have discussed how hard-right propaganda has largely been responsible for all the fuss about the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission and the United Nations. The most interesting aspect of this propaganda may actually be 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 continue to be so until this very day. This analysis of the Pilgrims Society has shown 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, the British Invisibles, LOTIS, etc., etc. The absolute core of the globalist movement largely consists of Pilgrims. Examples are the membership of Lord Roll, Lord Carrington, Arthur Dean, Gabriel Hauge, Henry Heinz, Richard Holbrooke, Henry Kissinger, John J. McCloy, Lord Kerr, David Rockefeller, Robert V. Roosa, Cyrus Vance, Paul Volcker, and John Whitehead. Charles Savoie additionally listed Sir Peter Sutherland and George Ball as Pilgrims, both also important globalists.
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. Quigley wrote:
“At the risk of some repetition, the story will be summarized here, because the American branch of this oganization (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.” 
This analysis of the Pilgrims Society has confirmed the existence of a network as described by Quigley. The Rockefellers, 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 members described by Quigley have at least visited the Pilgrims on one or more occasions, not all have been confirmed members. However, some of the alleged organizers and leaders of the Round Table certainly were members. They include Lord Lothian (d. 1940), Lord Brand of Lazard (d. 1963) and Adam D. Marris of Lazard (d. 1983). Among the Pilgrims can further be found a good number of All Souls fellows and Rhodes Scholars. A number of officers of the Rhodes Trust have appeared in PEHI/ISGP’s membership list 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 founding of the Federal Reserve system in the United States in 1913, which is often portrayed as a banker’s conspiracy, can also be traced to members of the Pilgrims. The conspiracy centered on a meeting at Jekyll Island in November 1910 in which leading bankers worked out the details of setting up a privately-owned central bank in the United States. Those that attended were Senator Nelson Aldrich, whose daughter married John D. Rockefeller, Jr. in 1901 and who was the person to introduce the banker’s plan to Congress; Frank Vanderlip, president of the Rockefellers’ National City Bank; Henry Davison, a partner of J.P. Morgan & Co. and a representative of the Astor interests; Charles Norton, president of the Morgan-dominated First National Bank of New York; Benjamin Strong, Jr. vice president of the Banker’s Trust of New York, also controlled by the Morgans; and Paul Warburg, a partner in Kuhn, Loeb & Co. Pilgrims researcher Charles Savoie has labeled virtually all of the Jekyll Island visitors as Pilgrims. This author has not seen the original sources in this case, but it is clear that many descendents, family members and business partners of the Jekyll Island conspirators have appeared in the Pilgrims. Among the descendants and families have been Benjamin Strong, Frank Vanderlip, Jr., the Warburg family and many Aldriches. The financial advisor to Senator Nelson Aldrich, Alfred L. Aiken, was a Pilgrim, and so was Aldrich’s associate in Congress, Edward B. Vreeland. Paul Warburg’s partners at Kuhn, Loeb, Jacob Schiff and Otto Kahn, were both Pilgrims, just as members of the Rockefeller, Morgan and Astor families. Since then Pilgrims have dominated the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and also had considerable presence on the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), the main body of the Federal Reserve that decides on monetary policy. In other words, the Pilgrims are very relevant to the history of the Federal Reserve and the financial history of the United States.
It is sometimes amazing to see how America’s anti-globalist conspiracy community can twist words, turning them into quotes which have been taken completely out of context. One of the biggest of such manipulations is a widely-circulated quote from H. G. Wells from his 1940 pamphlet ‘The New World Order’. You may have seen come across it:
“Countless people … will hate the new world order … and will die protesting against it.”
The full text of Wells’s pamphlet is readily available on the internet, so let’s take a look at the full text. We read:
“Countless people, from maharajas to millionaires 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.” 
Quite a difference, don’t you think? The “shortened” version of the quote will make people believe Wells is talking about suppressing the common men. The full quote, on the other hand, shows that Wells was actually talking about the elites of this world. It’s impossible to look inside Wells’s head to see his real motivations, but his pamphlets ‘The Open Conspiracy and Other Writings’ (1934) 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.
Wells was somewhat of an establishment figure and is even known to have visited a dinner of the Pilgrims of Great Britain in November 1913. In the years before, he was a member of the Coefficients, a 14-member pro-Empire dining club consisting of rather notable figures. Among the members were Sidney and Beatrice Webb, leading Fabian socialists; Sir 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. The members of this group do not appear to have been particularly involved in the Pilgrims. The Webbs were prominent Fabian socialists, a group which has had considerable influence on the principles of the British Labour Party, including New Labour. Lord Amery and the Cecils were early supporters of Zionism, largely in contrast to the Pilgrims establishment and the more right-wing (read: fascist) Duke of Windsor-Chamberlain clique. Wells knew these men through the Webbs, but at some point severed his ties again with the Webbs because he came to consider them Machiavellian manipulators. Wells did remain prominent in Labour politics over the years and in 1932 – alongside Aldous Huxley, 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 after a years-long economic depression. In their magazine ‘Plan’ the FPSI actually claimed the recent economic depression had been engineered by the large bankers. Alongside allied groups as the Council for Civil Liberties and the Socialist League, the FPSI also crusaded against what they 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, which was published in 1934 and by now should contain some highly recognizable accusations:
“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 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.” 
Wells was a promoter of his own version of “world social democracy” through his writings
and through his H. G. Wells Society (Cosmopolis), which merged with the FPSI in 1936. Wells’s idea of world social democracy is today largely continued by organizations as the Socialist International, which, although seemingly not part of the big globalist think tanks sponsored by banks and multinationals, do not really seem to have any particularly original or independent ideas on how to organize the world.
World War II was the major turning point in history which 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, who today is known 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 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
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 continuous economic depression of the 1930s, 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. Although most intellectuals preferred Hayek’s free- market theories over communism and severe socialism, ‘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. “Reagonomics” en “Thatcherism” were inspired by Hayek. 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.
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” (if we can use this term) 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 (said to have been a Pilgrim), John Tuthill (became head of the Atlantic Institute in the 1960s, which was mainly founded by Pilgrims), the U.S. State Department under John Foster Dulles, and the CIA under Allen Dulles. He also worked closely with the Dutch globalist Max Kohnstamm (private secretary to Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands; frequent Bilderberg visitor; initial 1973 European chairman of the Trilateral Commission; today on the advisory council of the European Policy Centre, together with Pilgrims executive Lord Kerr of Kinlochard and alleged Pilgrim Peter Sutherland, not to mention alleged child abuser Karel van Miert). 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 (Pilgrims; 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 (chair Chase Manhattan Bank; Pilgrims), Allen Sproul (Pilgrims; 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 (alleged Pilgrim; Chase; World Bank; Fed; Brookings; Bilderberg) and Marcus Wallenberg were among the chairmen of the foundation. Looking at all these names it’s hard to doubt Monnet’s loyalties.
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 wrote a book titled ‘Between to Ages’, which was published in 1970. 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 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.” 
Brzezinski appears not to have been a member of the Pilgrims Society, which would not be surprising considering his Polish descent and rather militant anti-communism. 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 Richard Stilwell, as well as the upcoming pro-Zionist Neoconservatives around Senator Henry Jackson (see PEHI’s Cercle article for more information). Without the support of Pilgrim Cyrus Vance, Secretary of State under Carter who had come from the Rockefeller Foundation, Brzezinski compromised with Team B and next to his Trilateral “interdependence” approach, Brzezinski also followed a hardline anti-communist policy in the Middle East, supporting the Shah in Iran and luring 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 Brzezinski would continue as one of the most important anti-communist crusaders for decades to come. 
Brzezinski has always walked a fine line between the Eastern Establishment and the right-wing, anti-communist radicals in Le Cercle. Brzezinski’s role as organizer of the Trilateral Commission and a fierce critic of radical Zionism, put him closer to the former group. In his book ‘Between Two Ages’ Brzezinski also gave an important warning that liberal democracy might some day be threatened by an elite abusing high technology.
“Another threat, less overt but no less basic, confronts liberal democracy. More directly linked to the impact of technology, it involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled and directed society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite whose claim to political power would rest on allegedly superior scientific knowhow. Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under close surveillance and control.” 
A honest warning it seems, but also a bit chilling considering Brzezinski’s obsession with student protests and the emerging of “Violent Left” at the time he wrote this book, not to mention his more recent observation that “democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization” . Brzezinski’s close associate Samuel Huntington wrote something similar for the Trilateral Commission in 1975:
“A government which lacks authority will have little ability short of cataclysmic crisis to impose on its people the sacrifices which may be necessary… We have come to recognize that there are potential desirable limits to economic growth. There are also potentially desirable limits to the indefinite extension of political democracy.” 
Whether the views of Brzezinski and Huntington entirely represent the ideas of the major globalists in the Pilgrims Society, especially David Rockefeller, is hard to say. They were not part of the Eastern Establishment by birth, but managed to reach some of the highest offices in the United States with the support of this establishment. Both Brzezinski and Huntington are globalists , but at the same time they are more outspokenly right-wing, anti-communist and anti-Zionist than the average globalist. Looking at Brzezinski’s past CIA-involvement  he somewhat reminds us of the CIA officers of the Georgetown Set – their main purpose being to fight communism and securing America’s foreign policy interests, but at the same time politically allied to the Pilgrims and CFR establishment.
A family which comes to light in this context are the Roosevelts. We discussed how these descendants of Theodore Roosevelt went from supporting fascism before World War II, to supporting the fascist underground after the war as senior officers in the CIA. While at least two members of this Roosevelt family publicly attacked the “pro-communist” Eastern Establishment, including the Rockefellers, a third, a senior CIA officer, would later become David Rockefeller’s Middle-East advisor at Chase Manhattan Bank. What has not been discussed yet is that another member of this family, Theodore Roosevelt IV, a prominent New York banker at Lehman Brothers, is heading today’s human-induced global warming scam alongside the more prominent Al Gore. Theodore IV is a director of the Alliance for Climate Protection, which is chaired by Al Gore. He is also chairman of the Pew Center for Global Climate Change, and on the board of both the World Resources Institute (again with Al Gore; also with Godrey family of the 1001 Club) and the Wilderness Society.
Both the World Resources Institute and the Wilderness Society sound a lot like the World Wilderness conferences of the late 1980s which worked in conjunction with the Pilgrims-dominated United Nations Association and were prominently attended by Maurice Strong, David Rockefeller, Edmund de Rothschild and James Baker (the latter three Pilgrims; the first a 1001 Club member). If the audio recordings and papers produced about these meetings are genuine, it is clear that Brzezinski’s and Huntington’s views on limiting freedom of expression in the West are shared with those of the most important globalists. In short, at these conferences the CO2 agenda is put on the map, and it is discussed how the United Nations should take possession of the world and severely decrease its population, “by military force, when required”. These conferences have been discussed in detail in PEHI’s 2006 introduction article.
The main point here is that the globalization process is run by the Anglo-American Establishment – the Pilgrims if you will – and many allied liberal-oriented businessmen in North America and Europe. What has not yet been understood, however, is the relationship between intelligence and the global establishment.
There’s a lot more that can be written about globalization and European integration, and this is something that has been done in some of PEHI/ISGP’s other articles.
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 – with 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 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.
What might be good to know is that the Anglo-American Establishment is not all powerful. Within the United States they have had some rivalry from the military and intelligence establishments, just as industrialists and businessmen from other parts of the country. Other opposing forces have been the Vatican-Paneuropa network in Europe and Zionism, especially the radical revisionist branch. Unfortunately, the leading figures in all these opposing groups appear to be more reactionary than those of the liberal Anglo-American Establishment. This doesn’t mean that the globalists of the Anglo-American Establishment are necessarily decent, upstanding citizens; it just means that they speak more articulately and plan things better. Just remember how Morgan banker Thomas Lamont tried to educate a reactionary fascist murderer named Benito Mussolini on how to appeal to the Anglo-American public. 
Now that we know that there is an Anglo-American Establishment, should we all oppose globalization and withdraw behind our own borders? This might be tempting, but at the same time this would merely be an unintellectual reactionary response to big business taking charge of the globalization process. With all the advanced and affordable means of transport (ignoring the coming oil crisis), the 24-hour news reports from around the world, and the internet, it will not be possible to stop globalization, nor would it be wise. The known history of the human race goes back almost 10,000 years and since this time has largely been characterized by only two things: abuse of power and war. Every historian at one point will realize that all he or she is reading about is the shifting of borders and the destruction of cultures as a result of abusive rulers looking for more territory and more riches. The only difference between all these wars is that they have become increasingly destructive as the centuries went by. At this point they will be so destructive that a war among the major nations of the earth will have to be avoided at all costs. The globalist group understands this, which in this case is good for everyone. What people in the conspiracy community may actually want to do is to stop fighting the concept of globalization, as apparently America’s ultra-right wants them to do, and instead focus on educating themselves and other people about the corruption in national governments and the globalist group. We need to get to a point in which enough people are so informed about conspiracy affairs that it will be impossible for governments to manipulate them into giving up their rights or supporting economic or military policies which will ruin the country, or maybe even Western democratic civilization as a whole. For a number of reasons, some more obvious than others, this is a daunting task, but one things is for sure: a more systematic and intellectual approach to conspiracy affairs, combined with a “different-globalist”* stance, will draw in many more educated and influential persons than the unfocused evangelist attitude of isolationism that is still dominant in conspiracy circles today.
* translation from the increasingly popular Dutch word “Andersglobalist”, a term used to describe people who are skeptical of the present globalization process which is characterized by deregulation and privatization, but who do not want to be labeled “anti-globalist”, as they are not against the concept of globalization itself.
 January 3, 1962, Amarillo Globe-Times, Edith Kermit Roosevelt, ‘Finds Power Elite Has… Funnel Into Capital’
 2002, Anne Pimlott Baker, ‘The Pilgrims of Great Britain – A Centennial History’, p. 13
 2003, Anne Pimlott Baker, ‘The Pilgrims of the United States – A Centennial History’, p. 6
 1991 version, (1979 original) Deborah Davis, ‘Katherine the Great’, pp. 175-176
 There’s little information available on the Georgetown Set. A few exceptions:
*) http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKgeorgetown.htm: “After the Second World War a small group of people began meeting on a regular basis. The group. living in Washington, became known as the Georgetown Set or the Wisner Gang. At the first the key members of the group were former members of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS). This included Frank Wisner, Philip Graham, David Bruce, Tom Braden, Stewart Alsop and Walt Rostow. Over the next few years others like George Kennan, Dean Acheson, Richard Bissell, Joseph Alsop, Eugene Rostow, Chip Bohlen, Desmond FitzGerald, Tracy Barnes, Cord Meyer, James Angleton, William Averill Harriman, John McCloy, Felix Frankfurter, John Sherman Cooper, James Reston, Allen W. Dulles and Paul Nitze joined their regular parties. Some like Bruce, Braden, Bohlen, McCloy, Meyer and Harriman spent a lot of their time working in other countries. However, they would always attend these parties when in Georgetown… The men shared similar political views. They tended to hold liberal views on domestic issues. These attitudes were developed while they were students in the 1930s. They were also passionate anti-communists. This was the result of the men’s experiences during the was and the events in Europe that followed the collapse of Nazi Germany in 1945. The vast majority were members of the Democratic Party but John Sherman Cooper and Desmond FitzGerald were both left-wing Republicans. As Sally Reston pointed out: “We were liberal anti-Communist, intellectuals, precisely the class and breed that Joe McCarthy hated and whose careers he wanted to ruin. It was the same old battle: the Republican right versus the Democratic left.””
*) 1992, Burton Hersh, ‘The Old Boys – The American Elite and the Origins of the CIA’, p. 301: “[Walter Bedell] Smith made his opinion of Wisner and his cronies plain within a month or so of assuming office, when he dispatched an underling to tour the Washington party circuit, where he was well aware a number of operations people Frank lured to town were accustomed to congregate off-hours. Many had, after all, the senior management posts around the OPC because, as Polly Fritchey doesn’t mind pointing our, “They had enough money of their own to be able to come down.” By Smith’s lights, this made them “dubious security risks and dilettantes.” “I don’t care whether they were blabbing secrets or not,” Smith allegedly declared. “Just give me the names of the people at Georgetown cocktail parties.” Approximately fifty left, probably the most inclusive slaughter of the operators until Admiral Stansfield Turner struck.”
 October 20, 1977, Carl Bernstein for Rolling Stone, ‘The CIA and the Media’
 1991 version, (1979 original) Deborah Davis, ‘Katharine the Great’, p. 134: “[Richard] Helms’s grandfather, Gates White McGarrah, an international financier, was a member of the board of directors of the Astor Foundation, which owned Newsweek…””
 2003, Anne Pimlott Baker, ‘The Pilgrims of the United States – A Centennial History’, pp. 12-13: “Meanwhile, the founding of the English-Speaking Union (E.S.U.) in London in 1918 by Evelyn Wrench, with the intention of opening branches all round the world, with large club houses in London and New York, stimulated the Pilgrims to consider establishing chapters of the Society in different parts of the United States. At the end of 1918 a specially convened sub-committee suggested they should start with Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, and San Francisco… Nicholas Murray Butler, a future president of the Pilgrims, worried that to establish other branches would be to change the character of the Pilgrims and would involve great loss of prestige and dignity…”
 December 20, 1991, memorandum of the Task Force of Greater CIA openness to the Director of Central Intelligence. Document quoted in: April 23, 1992, Washington Post, ‘CIA Report On Openness Classified Secret’
 1995, Gerald James, ‘In the Public Interest’, p. 137
 Ibid., pp. 137-138
 America at a Glance:
122 East 58th Street Daughters of the Cincinnati New York, NY 10022 212-319-6915
122 East 58th Street Huguenot Society-America Libr New York, NY 10022 212-755-0592
122 East 58th Street Military Order of Foreign Wars New York, NY 10022 212-751-5168
122 East 58th Street Pilgrims of the US New York, NY 10022 212-753-7178
122 East 58th Street # 2 New England Society in NY New York, NY 10022 212-752-1938
122 East 58th Street # 2 St Nicholas Society New York, NY 10022 212-753-7175
122 East 58th Street # 204 Holland Society of NY New York, NY 10022 212-758-1675
122 East 58th Street # 3 NY Genealogical Society New York, NY 10022 212-755-8532
122 East 58th Street # 3 Society of Colonial Wars New York, NY 10022 212-755-7082
122 East 58th Street # 4 New York Gnlgcl & Biolgcl Libr New York, NY 10022 212-755-8532
122 East 58th Street # Mezz Society of Mayflower Dscndnts New York, NY 10022 212-759-1620
 Weidenfeld interviewed in the 2005 BBC documentary ‘The Plot Against Harold Wilson’
 1959, Cornelius “Neil” Vanderbilt, Jr., ‘Man of the World’, p. 10
 Ibid., p. 218
 Ibid., p. 160: “Myron Taylor was a great friend of my parents’. Father had sat on many boards with him, and Mother and Mrs. Taylor were great social and personal friends. Although my parents were not in favor of my newspaper work, they thought it a great honor when the Myron Taylors asked me to dinner with Cardinal Pacelli and many other of his friends in New York, including the John D. Rockefeller, Jrs., Mr. Henry Frick, Mrs. Carnegie, the widow of Andrew Carnegie, the George F. Baker, Jrs., the Ogden Millses and others. After dinner I was singled out by Mrs. Taylor to talk with Cardinal Pacelli. She told him that I was very close to Mr. Roosevelt, and that Mr. Roosevelt probably felt more at home with me than with any other member of the White House staff…”
 Ibid., pp. 159-160:
 Martin Luther’s seal was a cross inside an open rose.
 The Supreme Council, Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, ‘Masonry Beyond the Third Degree’ (Produced by the Supreme Council, 33°)
 Among the more prominent officials that have been invited into Druid groves are Winston Churchill (Prime Minister), David Lloyd George (Prime Minister), Queen Elizabeth II, George Noakes (Archbishop of Wales), Rowan Williams (Archbishop of Canterbury), and Daniel Mullins (Roman Catholic bishop of Menevia). See:
July 19, 2002, The Times, ‘Why The Archbishop Is Embracing Pagan’
August 6, 2002, The Scotsman, ‘Archbishop hits back in row over druid honour’
 http://www.arthuriansocietyofknights.org/members.html: Field Marshal Sir William Birdwood, Admiral of the Fleet, The Rt. Honourable the Earl of Jellicoe of Scapa Flow, The Rt. Hon. W.L. Mackenzie King, Sir Henry Irving, David Garrick, Charles Dickens, Carl Rosa, The Marquis of Anglesey, The Lord Sempill, Major General the Earl of Athlone, KG. Sir Jack Scamp, The Lord Baden Powell of Gilwell, Sir Thomas Sopwith, The Earl of Dalhousie, The Viscount Tonypandy –one time Speaker of The House of Commons, Colonel David Stirling, Lt.. Commander Ian Fraser VC, Rear Admiral Anthony Miers VC, Admiral Sir Archibald Douglas, Commander Sir Hugh Trevor Dawson, The Lord Glenravel, The Lord Tennyson, The Lord Queenborough, The Viscount Finlay of Nairn, The Honourable Mr. Justice Lloyd Jacob, Colonel Sir Arthur Noble, Major General Sir Douglas Kendrew –one time Captain of England Rugby Football and Governor General New South Wales, Sir Percy Rugg, The Honourable Mr. Justice David Hunter, Vice Admiral Sir Norman Denning, Lt. General Sir Reginald Denning, The Lord Denning, The Lord Marshal of Leeds, Lt. Colonel Sir Colin Cole – Garter King at Arms, Colonel Sir Stuart Mallinson, Vice Admiral Sir Ronald Brockman, Major General Michael Walsh – Chief Scout, The Lord Wetherill –former Speaker of The House of Commons, The Earl of Limerick, and most recently Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup – Chief of Defence Staff.
(London) Times articles from the 1960s and 1970s show how the group regularly organized meetings at the Army & Navy Club.
 1990, Ron Chernow, ‘The House of Morgan’, pp. 441-442: “The [Morgan] bank also contended with an anti-Wall Street faction in Washington [FDR], which was determined to block any Morgan role… the government did not “intend to let Morgan and DuPont men run the war.”… These anti-Morgan maneuvers, coming from several directions, prevented the bank from resuming its World War I role, as did earlier U.S. entry into the war. In the Second World War, Washington would take charge of industrial mobilization through the War Productions Board and other agencies. The federal government was vastly more powerful now than it had been in Woodrow Wilson’s day, and it didn’t hesitate to intervene in the economy for political ends. In fact, government resources now eclipsed those of private banking houses. By World War II, banks were no longer large enough to bankroll wars, as Barings, Rothschilds, and Morgans had done in their heydays.”
 1959, Cornelius “Neil” Vanderbilt, Jr., ‘Man of the World’, p. 259
 2003, Anne Pimlott Baker, The Pilgrims of the United States – A centennial history’, p. 37, quoting from a letter of former chairman Cunliffe-Owen to John Wilson Taylor, February 8, 1924.
 A brief history of the Rockefeller-Exxon connection:
*) October 22, 1968, Sheboygan Journal (amongst others), Drew Pearson, ‘Washington Merry-go-round, Pueblo Crew Release Foreseen’: “Onassis himself has long been an Argentine resident and as such escaped paying personal taxes either in Greece or New York. Furthermore, dollars owed under the Panamanian flag are almost 100 per cent tax free and can be sent anywhere in the Allied world. In contrast, dollars earned by American flagships are subject to a 38 per cent corporation tax payable in the years earned. Of course Onassis is not alone in taking advantage of the Panamanian tax dodge. The worst offender in using foreign flagships is Standard Oil of New Jersey, a Rockefeller corporation which operates approximately 118 tankers under foreign flags. This is done through 17 foreign subsidiaries wholly owned or controlled by Standard Oil of New Jersey.”
*) May 27, 1976, The Oakland Tribune, ‘The Oil Giants’: “The government over many years has spent millions investigating the oil giants’ billions, beginning with Exxon, the $45 billion giant of the giants. Exxon began life as Standard Oil of New Jersey, the keystone of John D. Rockefeller’s oil trust. The government in 1911 busted Rockefeller’s American oil monopoly and the government files show that 17 years later Exxon was conspiring secretly with British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell to create a worldwide monopoly. The American oil trust became the international oil cartel and the government since 1911 never has laid a hand on the power and glory of the Rockefeller empire.”
*) Governor Jay Rockefeller was a nephew of Nelson, David and the other Rockefeller brothers. In the late 1970s, Jay was in the possession of a significant amount of shares in Standard Oil Company of New Jersey (Exxon). October 12, 1977, Charleston Daily Mail, ‘Grandfather’s Trust Fund’: “These stocks are included as part of the trust fund established Feb. 1, 1952 for Gov. [Jay] Rockefeller by his grandfather, John D. Rockefeller Jr. Standard Oil of New Jersey, the largest holding, and Standard Oil of California were started by John D. Rockefeller Sr. The New Jersey company was renamed Exxon. [—] No. of Shares Company Common Stock… 2,300 Standard Oil Company of California; 25,000 Standard Oil Company of New Jersey.”
*) December 10, 1979, Atchison Daily Globe, Jack Anderson’s Washington Merry-Go-Round, ‘Kissinger Image Goodbye?’: “Kissinger is now back as the foreign policy adviser to the Rockefeller financial empire, which owes the shah far more than a moral debt. In fact, the shah is still a client worth billions; my sources say he relies heavily on the investment counsel of David Rockefeller and Kissinger. Rockefeller is chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank which, together with the Rockefeller trust funds and private family holdings, controls EXXON. The president of EXXON, H.C. Kauffmann, also is a director of Chase Manhattan. There are other interlocking ties between the banking conglomerate and the oil colossus. Both have been under Rockefeller domination for decades… The dominant company in this new American-Iranian oil consortium was EXXON. The shah also made Chase Manhattan his favorite bank. He personally ordered subordinates to channel oil purchases and other transactions through the Rockefeller bank. And he shunted other lucrative deals to the Rockefeller crowd. This raises ugly questions about Kissinger’s failure to stop the shah from quadrupling oil prices.”
*) December 11, 1986, Syracuse Herald Journal, ‘Japan group buys Exxon building for $610 million’: “The 54-story Exxon Building, part of Rockefeller Center, has been sold to a subsidiary of the giant Japanese conglomerate Mitsui & Co. for $610 million, the owners of the 13-year-old skyscraper announced Wednesday. The Exxon Corp. and Rockefeller Group Inc. said the deal with Mitsui Fudosam (NY) Inc. would be completed before the end of this month to take advantage of current favorable tax ‘rules on capital gains and depreciation.”
*) October 27, 1989, Chronicle Telegram, ‘Manhattan is too expensive – Exxon Corp. is moving headquarters to Dallas’: “Exxon Corp is moving its world headquarters from midtown Manhattan to suburban Dallas, a dramatic sign that New York’s high costs are driving business away from what had been the undisputed corporate capital of America… Exxon exemplifies Big Oil and Establishment New York. It has been based in Manhattan since John D. Rockefeller founded his Standard Oil Trust in 1882.”
*) The influence of the Rockefellers on ExxonMobile is not likely to be very significant anymore, as in recent years this company has been funding global warming skeptics in direct opposition to the Rockefeller family. April 23, 2007, CNN Money, ‘Exxon = oil, g*dammit!’: “Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) sent Tillerson a long letter berating the company for funding groups dubious of global warming. (The irony of a Rockefeller attacking Exxon ensured extra attention for the story: Exxon is a descendant of Standard Oil, source of the Rockefeller family fortune.)”
 See PEHI’s Cercle and Beyond Dutroux articles for details on CIA and DIA covert action.
 November 17, 2004, Patrick Martin for World Socialist Web Site, ‘Behind State Department, CIA shake-up: Bush-Cheney regime prepares a second term of all-out militarism’
 June 15, 2008, Associated Press, ‘Rice criticizes Israel on West Bank settlements’
 June 26, 1977, Washington Post, ‘Behind-Scenes Power Over Arms Policy’
 *) 1997 (1988 original Hebrew), Haggi Eshed, ‘Reuven Shiloah – The Man Behind the Mossad’, pp. 188-189: “One of the personal contacts Reuven Shiloah made when he took up his post as Minister in Washington was an old friend of Israel – Assistant Secretary of State Walter Bedell-Smith. He had been head of the CIA when the agreement for cooperation between the CIA and the Mossad, headed by Shiloah, was worked out… The friendship between these two men was well known among the Washington elite, and was to play a crucial role in healing the rift between President Eisenhower and Prime Minister Ben-Gurion at the height of the Sinai Campaign, when the administration forced Israel to pull its troops out of Sinai under conditions that were very unfavorable – if not humiliating – to Israel… [Bedell-Smith] accompanied Eisenhower in his meeting with the Chairman of the Jewish Agency Executive, Ben-Gurion, during a visit to Displaced Persons camps after the war, and shared his chief’s support for the refugees’ suffering and their desire to emigrate to Palestine to put an end to their anguish. Bedell-Smith also met with Ben-Gurion in May 1951, when the agreement for intelligence cooperation was signed between the two countries… Shiloah would meet Bedell-Smith in the afternoons, usually at his home, and occasionally at the home of a mutual friend, Abe Wexler, who had an enormous farm in upstate New York… Bedell-Smith met with Reuven Shiloah whenever he was asked to do so, even at short notice. Shiloah’s widow recalls long trips through the night for marathon meetings with Bedell-Smith. Wexler remembers one occasion when Shiloah kissed Bedell-Smith on both cheeks ‘in appreciation for what he had done for the State of Israel.’… Bedell-Smith was certain, Wexler says, that the Arabs would not stand with the US against the Soviets, either militarily or diplomatically, and that should the day come, the US would be able to count only on Israel. The only problem was that this analysis of the Middle East question was not very popular among officials in Washington at the time.”
*) 1992, Andrew and Leslie Cockburn, ‘Dangerous Liaison – The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israeli Covert Relationship’, p. 41: “[May 1951:] In a meeting with CIA Director Walter Bedell Smith and his deputy, Allen Dulles, the prime minister [Ben-Gurion] made a straightforward offer: the intelligence organizations of Israel would be enlisted in the service of the CIA. The arrangement was to be kept entirely secret. The two top CIA men expressed their appreciation and accepted the offer with alacrity.”
 These people favored Arab oil and some of them supported the underground fascist movements and had worked with the fascist regimes before and during WWII.
 James Baker was Secretary of State from 1989 to 1992.
*) March 2, 1992, William Safire for the New York Times, ‘Essay; Humiliating Israel’: “The depth of James Baker’s anti-Israel animus was displayed last week when he complained to Congress, “Nobody else is asking us for $10 billion in addition to the $3 billion to $4 billion we give every year with no strings attached.””
*) March 20, 1992, Leslie H. Gelb for New York Times, ‘Foreign Affairs; The Anti-Israeli Leaks’: “Are George Bush and James Baker scheming to undercut Israel in America? The answer turns largely on the story behind three recent, nasty news leaks, and the Bush-Baker reactions. Leak 1: An Ed Koch column in The New York Post on March 6. Somebody told the former New York Mayor about a meeting where Mr. Baker was told that his get-tough policy on Israel would hurt Mr. Bush among Jewish voters. The Secretary supposedly responded, ” [ Expletive ] the Jews, they don’t vote for us anyway.””
*) 1994, John Loftus and Mark Aarons, ‘The Secret war against the Jews’, p. 4: “Although there is some dispute about the exact wording [of Baker’s “Fuck the Jews”], the secretary of state’s vulgarism has been confirmed by two reporters from different sources who were present when he said it. Nor was it the first such outburst. When Baker was being sworn in, one of the White House aides commented humorously that every American secretary of state had left office hating the Israelis. Baker is supposed to have joked: “What if one started that way.””
 2006, Michael Karpin, ‘The Bomb in the Basement’, pp. 20-21, 84: “At the beginning of World War II, the Zionist leadership had no doubt that the British government headed by Winston Churchill, Zionism’s greatest friend in Britain, would give the Jews their national home in Palestine. There were thousands of Jews in the British forces. The Palestinian Arabs supported Hitler… Reality proved entirely different. In April 1945, Churchill’s foreign secretary, Athony Eden, persuaded him that the partition of Palestine between Jews and Arabs would harm British interests. First of all, the supply of oil from the Middle East would be gravely threatened. Second, the Jews would encourage the entry of the Soviet Union into the Middle East arena. A month earlier, in March, Eden had assisted in the establishment of the Arab League. The British, in order to demonstrate that they were not about to give up on the mandate, closed the shores of Palestine to boats carrying Jewish refugees from Europe. Then in July, the British electorate voted out Churchill’s Conservative government. Again Zionist leaders rejoiced; after all, the Labor Party has always taken a clearly pro-Zionist stance and at its annual conference one year earlier, in 1944, had adopted a resolution in favor of a Jewish state in all of western Palestine, with the Arab population transferred to the neighboring Arab countries… But again, they [the Zionist leadership] reaped disappointment. In November, it became clear that Labor would not implement the 1944 resolution. The restrictions on Jewish immigration remained in force… Ever since Clement Atlee’s Labour Party had reneged on its commitment to a Jewish state in Palestine after it trounced Winston Churchill’s Tories in the 1945 elections, Ben-Gurion had developed an obsessive resentment against Britain. His mistrust of Anthony Eden was so profound that he raised the suspicion that even as Britain was cooperating with Israel on the Suez front, it would come to the assistance of its Jordanian allies and launch military operations against Israel on its eastern border.”
*) 2006, Michael Karpin, The Bomb in the Basement’, p. 24: “Truman’s predecessor, Franklin D. Roosevelt, had put Ben-Gurion off, because Roosevelt spoke one language to the Jewish leaders and another to the Arabs.”
*) 1992, Andrew and Leslie Cockburn, ‘Dangerous Liaison – The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israeli Covert Relationship’, pp. 23-24, 26: “The Americans did not become involved in the area until the 1930s, when the sterile sands of Saudi Arabia were discovered to conceal vast pools of oil. In 1945 President Franklin Roosevelt had met on an American warship with King Ibn Saud, who turned up with a medieval entourage of food tasters, wives, and bodyguards. The two got on well together, and Roosevelt presented the king with his spare wheelchair as a present. Thereafter, control of the Saudi oil fields became a vital interest that the American national security establishment was loath to endanger. Saudi Arabia, one American official said in 1948, was “probably the richest economic prize in history.” Both the State Department and the military were united in decrying any official support for the Zionist… because it might upset valuable allies such as the Saudi monarch. President Harry Truman later recalled that Defense Secretary James Forrestal “spoke to me repeatedly about the danger that hostile Arabs might deny us access to the petroleum treasures of their country… Despite personal sympathy for the suffering of the Jews in Europe, Truman was not overly enthusiastic about supporting a Jewish state in Palestine. He felt that such a state would become a racist, theocratic entity and had no desire to overrule the policy of his own State Department [but was soon pressured by the Zionist lobby].”
*) 1994, John Loftus and Mark Aarons, ‘The Secret war against the Jews’, p. 99: Talks about Truman being “misled” by his State and Defense Department advisors in following a pro-Arab policy. Talks about Truman not really going along with this agenda.
 Examples of anti-Israel stance of Pilgrims:
*) The State Department, dominated by Pilgrims, has never been known for its pro-Israel bias. The Morgans and Vanderbilts were known for their anti-semitism, while other important Americans as the Rockefellers, as their friends in the British royalist circles, sold out the Jews before and during World War II by supporting the Nazis.
*) The earlier-discussed Pilgrim James Baker had an extreme distaste of Zionism.
*) Pilgrim Elmer Bobst, a Knights of Malta who sat on the board of the Pope John Paul II Center for Prayer and Study for Peace together with Kurt Waldheim (Secretary General of the United Nations, ex-nazi war criminal, friend of Arnold Schwarzenegger), Cyrus Vance (Secretary of State; Pilgrim) and J. Peter Grace (Pilgrim; head of the Knights of Malta in the United States) was a notorious anti-semite.
*) Pilgrim Lord Chelwood: February 20, 1985, Lord Chelwood’s letter in The Times, ”Selling’ ideas to Israel’ : “How can you dismiss so lightly the question of self-determination for more than four million Palestinians, over half of them refugees? The Palestinians’ right to statehood is indisputably based on the UN Charter and numerous resolutions. President Sadat recognized this when he bravely told the Knesset that they “should have their own state”. King Hoessein calls it “their basic right” . The Saudi-inspired Fez plan insists on it. So does the European Community’s Venice Declaration. The Soviet Union has always done so. America has funked and fudged the issue by talking of “autonomy” and “homelands” (Camp David), or “self-government in association with Jordan” (Reagan Plan). Sadly Israel, a courageous minority apart, rejects out of hand the concept of occupied territory for peace. You suggest that the American government do not believe that they can “sell” the idea to Israel. Why not? Let them try.”
*) Patron of the Pilgrims, Queen Elizabeth II: March 29, 1984, The Times, ‘Israel’s expansion depresses Queen’: “During a lengthy briefing on a Jordan valley farm from Crown Prince Hassan, King Husain’s [a Cercle member and long-time beneficiary of CIA funds] younger brother, the Queen described as depressing a map detailing Israel’s ambitious plans for expanding Jewish settlements in the occupied West bank, conquered from Jordan during the 1967 war… the Queen spoke forthrightly about what she described as “the tragedy of the Palestinians” which she said had afflicted Jordan more than any other country… The Oxford-educated Crown Prince, who is Jordan’s expert on the settlement issue, explained in detail Israeli intentions to increase the number of Jews living on the territory won from Jordan to 1.4m by the year 2010, by which time the number of West Bank Arabs is expected to be only slightly more than 1.6m… The British monarch’s growing identification with the Palestinian cause during her Jordanian tour is thought certain to have serious repercussions for Britain’s already strained diplomatic relations with Israel.”
*) Reported Pilgrims George Ball and Richard Boucher have been great critics of Israel.
*) November 4, 2004, Daily Telegraph, ‘Obituary of Sir David Gore-Booth’ [son of Pilgrims executive Lord Paul Gore-Booth]: “David was sent to Eton, whence he went up to Christ Church, Oxford. He joined the Foreign Office in 1964 and enrolled at the Middle East Centre for Arab Studies in the mountains above Beirut – an institution frequently attacked on the ground that it imbues its students with a hostility towards Zionism. During his career, which also included stints in Baghdad, Tripoli and Jedda, Gore-Booth did nothing to dispel this notion with what he had to say about Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. In 1991 some MPs called for his resignation over remarks he made at a private meeting at the House of Commons. “Israel,” he said, “is little or no better than any other Middle Eastern state in terms of its militarism, standard of democracy and denial of human rights.” Much of the instability in the region, he added, was “due to a failure to establish Israel’s borders and Israel’s refusal to allow the Palestinians to have the same rights as those they claim for themselves”.”
 *) May 24, 1939, The Times, ‘House of Commons’: “The White Paper would drive the two peoples further apart. The House was being asked to set up a religious cauldron in Palestine… He wanted fair play in Palestine for Jew, Arab, and Christian. He liked Mr. [James] Rothschild’s idea of Palestine as a British colony where all inhabitants, irrespective of race, would have British justice.”
*) November 3, 1955, The Times, ‘”If the worst should happen” – Israel Ambassador’s warning’: “Mr. J. de Rothschild, former Liberal M.P. for the Isle of Ely, and Joint Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Supply, 1945, said that the interests of the Middle East would now best be served by a closer link between Britain and Israel. “I firmly believe that Israel has now made the grade, and shown herself fit to become a member of the Commonwealth,” he added. “I believe that if the Commonwealth would admit Israel, this would ensure such certainty of peace that the hot-heads in Cairo would cool, as they would in Beirut and Damascus.””
 *) June 28, 1933, The Times, ‘Jews in Germany’: “The Archbishop of Canterbury spoke at a meeting at Queen’s Hall last night, when a resolution was passed protesting against the discrimination being exercised against the Jews in Germany. Lord Buckmaster presided, and among those present were Lord Cecil of Chelwood, president of the League of Nations Union… The Chairman read letters expressing sympathy with the objects of the meeting from Lord Salisbury and Lord Grey of Fallodon.”The Cecils continued to protest against the appeasement policy throughout the 1930s.
*) 1978, Simon Schama, ‘Two Rothschilds and the Land of Israel’, p. 191: “In any event, the contribution made by members of the French and English families towards extracting official expressions of approval for the establishment of a Jewish ‘homeland’ in Palestine, went well beyond lip-service or mere standing in as token figure-heads for the ‘real’ Zionists. In many cases they were the real Zionists… men such as Leo Amery, Theo Russell and Robert Cecil.”
*) 1978, Simon Schama, ‘Two Rothschilds and the Land of Israel’, pp. 265, 293-294: “The signs of progress in Palestine, however, were overshadowed by the darkness gathering around the Jews of Germany… [He, Edmond de Rothschild]] urged those who could to leave Germany – and for that matter Austria and Poland too – while it was still possible to depart with at least some of their assets intact [preferably to Palestine, if possible]… ‘The White Paper [massively limiting Jewish immigration to Palestine],’ James [de Rothschild] stated in the House, ‘proposes in so many words that Great Britain shall wash its hands of its obligations… For the majority of Jews who go to Palestine it is a question of migration or of physical extinction; for the Arabs it is a question of addition to their present vast territories.'”
 The efficiency of the Haganah intelligence organization has been discussed in many books, including those that appear in these notes.
 *) 1992, Andrew and Leslie Cockburn, ‘Dangerous Liaison – The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israeli Covert Relationship’, pp. 26-27: “Harry Truman’s public image of bluff and plucky independence belied his true political instincts, which as often as not were flexible to the point of timidity. His initial response to the dilemma of the partition vote was that the U.S. should itself vote in favor, but would not order other countries under U.S. influence to follow suit. Thus, he would appear to have fulfilled his obligations to his Zionist donors while appeasing the State and Defense departments.”
 Also see previous note.
*) 1992, Andrew and Leslie Cockburn, ‘Dangerous Liaison – The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israeli Covert Relationship’, pp. 26-27: “At the last minute, however, the Zionists caught on to the stratagem and successfully pressured Truman to issue orders that quasi-colonies such as the Philippines, Haiti, and Liberia should switch their votes, which they did. The French were threatened with a total cutoff in U.S. aid, and capitulated. Most of the Latin American republics were equally willing to do as they were told (though some of their officials held out for hefty bribes), and the crucial resolution was passed. Truman’s reward [for supporting the partitioning in Palestine, having led to the creation of the State of Israel] came in the 1948 election. At the campaigning commenced he told his advisors: “Boys, if I can’t have the money to see the people, I’m going to win this election. If I had the money, I would put my own money in first. Now, you all go… and see what you can do about it.” His faith was not misplaced. Abe Feinberg, an ardent Zionist who had built up his fortune during World War II, coordinated a fund-raising drive that pulled in $100,000 (big political money in those days) within two days of the president’s appeal. This support from Feinberg and others, such as jewelry store magnate Ed Kaufman, continued throughout the campaign.”
*) 2006, Michael Karpin, The Bomb in the Basement’, p. 135. Gives a detailed summary of Feinberg’s Haganah past and gives the exact same story about Feinberg’s fundraising for Truman. Also quoted Feinberg himself: “The trip was a triumphant trip from his [Truman’s] point of view as a politician,’ said Feinberg. “He often said, ‘If not for my friend Abe, I couldn’t have made the trip and I wouldn’t have been elected.’ This is not true. The trip would have been made one way or another. But I think it was helpful to him to know early that the problem of making the trip was behind him.” P. 129: “Whenever there was a need to raise funds from American Jews for a Zionist cause, Ben-Gurion would say: ‘Call Abe.” The same thing happened on the American side. When the Democratic presidents, Truman, Kennedy, or Johnson, needed to convey a message to the Israeli leadership, or when they wanted to persuade Israel to make a sensitive political move, they would also tell their aides, “Call Abe.””
 1992, Andrew and Leslie Cockburn, ‘Dangerous Liaison – The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israeli Covert Relationship’, p. 27.
 Some may have thought that Loftus extremely pro-Israel and anti-Arab bias is a bit suspect. They are right. Loftus has been an organizer and president of “the Intelligence Summit”, a club filled with hard-right intelligence, special forces, and psychological warfare veterans from the United States, Britain and Israel.
http://www.intelligencesummit.org/speakers/JohnLoftus.php: “John J. Loftus President, The Intelligence Summit” .
This is an extremely weird bunch of people. Among the members of the executive and advisory board are:
* Lt. General Tom McInerney – retired high U.S. Air Force officer. Senior military analyst for Fox News. In 2004 wrote ‘Endgame: The Blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror’ with co-Intelligence Summit officer Paul Vallely and an introduction from Oliver North.
* Dame Pauline Neville-Jones – former chair Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), a coordinating body for MI5, MI6 and the GCHQ [British NSA], and a controversial BBC governor.
* Major General Paul Vallely – veteran in special operations, psychological and civil-military operations. Co-authored a 1980 paper with then PSYOP analyst Michael Aquino (a Satanist accused of massive child abuse) entitled From PSYOP to MindWar: The Psychology of Victory.
* Richard Marcinko – Former Navy Seal turned author.
* Lt.Col. Gordon Cucullu – special forces veteran who sits on the board of the neoconservative Benador Associates.
* Lt. Col. Bill Cown – special forces veteran with “extensive experience with the CIA”
* Clare Lopez – former Field Operations Officer for the CIA.
* Wayne Simmons – special forces veteran recruited by the CIA in 1973. Terrorism Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 2002. Part of the Pentagon Outreach Program for Military and Intelligence Analysts under Rumsfeld. One of the first outside Intelligence officers to visit Guantanamo Bay.
* Yoram Hessel – former Senior Mossad Officer, now in the high technology business.
* Robert Spencer – director Jihad Watch.
 Information about pressuring Truman and he turn pressuring Latin America: 1992, Andrew and Leslie Cockburn, ‘Dangerous Liaison – The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israeli Covert Relationship’ (note 39-40).
1994, John Loftus and Mark Aarons, ‘The Secret war against the Jews’, pp. 164, 167: “At this point, the Jews had little faith in Truman’s ability to control his own delegation in the UN [to push for a pro-partition policy], let alone anyone else’s. The Zionists needed to pick up at least four votes in three days to ensure their own two-thirds majority. Only one man had that kind of influence in Latin America. Ben-Gurion decided it was time someone paid a visit to Nelson Rockefeller and showed him the file the Zionists had compiled… Ben-Gurion had already accumulated more than enough ammunition against Rockefeller and had decided that he could not take any chances with an indirect approach. There was no time for a British-style media campaign. The Latin American votes were needed in three days. Our American sources insist that the Jews simply laid their cards on the table for Nelson to read and “blackmailed the hell out of him.””
 1994, John Loftus and Mark Aarons, ‘The Secret war against the Jews’, pp. 169-170: “In return for the votes of the Latin American bloc, he wanted guarantees that the Jews would keep their mouths shut about the flow of Nazi money and fugitives to South America. There would be no Zionist Nazi-hunting unit, no testimony at Nuremberg about the bankers or anyone else, not a single leak to the press about where the Nazis were living in South America or which Nazis were working for Dulles. The subject of Nazis was closed. Period. Forever. The choice was simple, Rockefeller explained. “You can have vengeance, or you can have a country, but you cannot have both.”… The men who murdered the Jews of Europe were effectively given amnesty, except for the unlucky few who had already been punished. But the promise was conditional on Rockefeller delivering the votes. “Don’t worry,” he assured them, “every country in Latin America will either vote in favor of Israel or abstain.” Rockefeller said he would deliver, and he did. In three days he called every dictator, caudillo, and businessman he had in his hip pocket and told them the facts of life. As Western intelligence officers confirmed, the results were immediate and dramatic…. To the amazement of the Arab world, on November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution recommending the partition of Palestine by thirty-three votes to thirteen against, with ten abstentions, a majority of almost 72 percent. Clearly, there was a significant turn-around in the voting blocs.”
Relevant pages transcribed in Nelson Rockefeller’s Pilgrims biography.
Country Vote, Nov. 25 Vote, Nov. 29
Argentina No Abstained
Colombia No Abstained
El Salvador No Abstained
Brazil No Yes
Haiti No Yes
Nicarague Abstained Yes
Bolivia Abstained Yes
Ecuador Abstained Yes
France Abstained Yes
New Zealand Abstained Yes
 Ibid., p. 169: “During the mid-1980s he flew to the United States to meet one of the authors. After several hours’ discussion about Nazi war criminals, the conversation was steered to the topic of Zionist blackmail of Nelson Rockefeller. The Israeli was surprised but eventually admitted that he had been personally acquainted with Reuven Shiloah, Ben-Gurion’s intelligence chief, who had masterminded the operation.”
 *) 1997 (1988 original Hebrew), Haggi Eshed, ‘Reuven Shiloah – The Man Behind the Mossad’, p. 250: “… Shimson Arad, another future ambassador, whom Reuven instructed in his first steps as a young diplomat in Washington. Arad remembers Shiloah as a good teacher and a creative diplomat who knew how to weave a network of close personal relationships throughout the United States, and not only in administration circles… This is how Israel’s ‘Triangle of Influence’ in the United States was created: contacts with the heads of the Administration in the White House and the State Department, with the heads of the parties in both houses of Congress and with the heads of the large Jewish organizations. Among the leaders of Jewish organizations of that time, the most prominent of them all was Philip Klutznik, President of B’nai Brith, and chairman of the ‘Presidents’ Club’ [who was in close contact with Shiloah and was advised by him]… The truth is that the Jewish leaders might actually have done less than they did were it not for the encouraging support of very influential non-Jews who stood by Israel throughout the [Sinai] campaign – among them former CIA chief Walter Bedell-Smith…”
*) Ibid., pp. 94-98 (just after WWII): “Reuven Zaslany [Shiloah] arrived in San Francisco for the opening of the United Nations on 26 April 1945, together with Eliyahu Eilat and Gershon Agron – all three of them observers. Their duties involved aiding and advising the representatives of the Jewish Agency in the United States during the conference. Zaslany lobbied media representatives and writers intensively during the event to try to gain support for two main objectives… During the conference, Zaslany sent letters to Teddy Kollek [important Haganah intelligence officer; along with Shiloah responsible for the CIA-Mossad alliance in 1951] and Ze’ev Sherf in which he outlined proposals for organizational changes in the Zionist institutions in the United States.”
*) Ibid., pp. 241-242 (during the 1956 Suez crisis): “‘The first impression in American public opinion was that Israel had launched a rolling war that might spread to other areas’, Eban relates in his report. ‘The official explanation that this was merely a limited defensive action, arrived only hours later, but in the meantime Israel came under heavy criticism for supposedly playing with fire.’ The Jewish community in America was as confused as everyone else. The ‘Presidents’ Club’ [later CPMAJO, the Zionist lobby group which focuses on the executive branch of the U.S. government] met the day after the war broke out, on 30 October, and spoke to Shiloah, who stood in for Eban who was attending the Security Council at that time. What surfaced in this meeting was a reticence about supporting Israel’s action, particularly in open opposition to United States’ policies… The Jewish community was to become one of Israel’s most important arenas in its diplomatic efforts in the United States. President Eisenhower and Secretary of State Dulles were at considerable pains to split the Jewish community on this issue, to side-step the ‘Presidents’ Club’ and to ensure Jewish support for the American administration’s stand as opposed to that expressed by the government of Israel throughout the protracted negotiations on conditions for an Israeli withdrawal Israel won the first round in this confrontation. Abba Eban, who was not known for the largesse of his praise of others, writes: ‘Reuven Shiloah’s enormous PR efforts in the Jewish community, with the help of Philip Klutznik, President of B’nai Brith [and the Council of Presidents]… finally produced a joint announcement: calling on the United States government to restore security to Israel and peace to the Middle East’.”
 June 4, 1945, Maryville Daily Forum, ‘Drew Pearson on the Washington Merry-go-round’
 See the investigations of the [Governor Philip Fox] La Follette Civil Liberties Committee of 1937. It described the extremely violent union busting tactics of such companies as Ford, General Motors and Du Pont.
 1943, George Seldes, ‘Facts and Fascism’, p. 123
 Ibid., pp. 34-47 (‘Big Business Bossed Mussolini’)
 1990, Ron Chernow, ‘The House of Morgan’, pp. 279-281: “After the war [WWI], J. P. Morgan and Company sparred with Dillon, Read for business with the Italian government. Lamont wanted an exclusive relationship, as understood by the Gentleman Banker’s Code. In 1923, six months after taking power, Mussolini first met with Lamont to discuss how to restore Italian credit. Initially Wall Street viewed il Duce benignly, as the man who had saved strike-torn Italy from Bolshevik hands. The Blackshirt terror that killed a hundred people in the 1921 elections was conveniently overlooked. Traveling through Italy, Jack Morgan reported to a friend, “We had the great satisfaction of seeing Mr. Mussolini’s Revolution… Afterward, Lamont wrote this paean: “The Italy through which I traveled seemed to be industrious and prosperous. The newspaper headlines in New York and even London papers seemed to me exaggerated. Everybody, both in and out of the Government, laughed at these stories of street fights, unrest upsetting the Government etc.” Back at 23 Wall, lamont received an autographed photograph from Mussolini, which was now featured as prominently on his wall as the earlier picture of Woodrow Wilson had been… As the big $100 million loan hung in the balance, Lamont made his most startling shift with Mussolini, one that went far beyond basic banking requirements. This former champion of the League of Nations began to coach the Italian dictator on how to appeal to Anglo-American opinion. He fed him sugared phrases, language that would make reprehensible policies palatable abroad. A modern man, Lamont knew that any product, if attractively packaged, could be marketed to the public. After Mussolini suspended town councils and bullied Parliament into passing 2,364 decrees at once, Lamont sent fresh publicity angles to Fummi for il Duce’s consideration… As with the Dawes Loan to Germany, the Morgan loan to Italy proved a catalyst for further American investment. The bank itself went on to provide loans to Rome and to two industrial clients, Fiat and Pirelli. In December 1927, J. P. Morgan again joined with Ben Strong and established a credit for Banca d’Italia that permitted a return to the gold standard. On a Wall Street disturbed by European radicalism and worshipful of economic progress, Lamont wasn’t the only Mussolini supporter. Jack Morgan and George Whitney both hailed him as a great patriot. Otto Kahn of Kuhn, Loeb likened his iron rule to that of a tough receiver straightening out a bankrupt company. With a poetic flourish, Willis Booth of Guaranty Trust said Mussolini lifted Italy “out of the slough of despair into the bright realm of promise.” Judge Elbert Gary of U.S. Steel and publicist Ivy Lee joined the fan club.”
 ** I.G. Farben: December 11, 1945, Council Bluffs Nonpareil (Iowa), ‘Farben tested poison gas on camp inmates’: “Its cartel agreements numbered over 2,000 and included agreements with such major industrial concerns as Standard Oil of New Jersey, the Aluminum company of America, E. I. du Pont de Nemours, Ethyl Export corporation, Imperial Chemical Industries of Great Britain, the Dow Chemical company, Rohn and Haas, Establishments, Kuhlmann of France and the Mitsui interests of Japan.”
** Henry Ford: Ford’s devotion to Nazism and Hitler personally is well known these days.
** Watsons: 2001, Edwin Black, ‘IBM and the Holocaust’, online excerpt: “Hitler and his hatred of the Jews was the ironic driving force behind this intellectual turning point. But his quest was greatly enhanced and energized by the ingenuity and craving for profit of a single American company and its legendary, autocratic chairman. That company was International Business Machines, and its chairman was Thomas J. Watson… How much did IBM know? Some of it IBM knew on a daily basis throughout the 12-year Reich. The worst of it IBM preferred not to know–“don’t ask, don’t tell” was the order of the day. Yet IBM NY officials, and frequently Watson’s personal representatives, Harrison Chauncey and Werner Lier, were almost constantly in Berlin or Geneva, monitoring activities, ensuring that the parent company in New York was not cut out of any of the profits or business opportunities Nazism presented. When U.S. law made such direct contact illegal, IBM’s Swiss office became the nexus, providing the New York office continuous information and credible deniability.”
** Dillons: Changed the name of W.A. Read & Company into Dillon, Read & Company in 1920. James Forrestal joined Dillon, Read & Company in 1923. General William H. Draper Jr. joined the firm in 1926 and described Forrestal already as the #2 man, right below Dillon. In January 1926, Dillon Read created the German Credit and Investment Corporation in Newark, New Jersey and Berlin, Germany. That same year, Dillon Read created the Vereinigte Stahlwerke (German Steel Trust), incorporating the Thyssen family interests under the direction of New York and London finance. Thyssen, together with banker Hjalmar Schacht, were the first major sponsors of Hitler.
*) April 23, 1948, Ogden Standard-Examiner – Drew Pearson, ‘Nazi Arms Plants Spared Under New U.S. Policy’: “For in 1932, it was the Krupps, the Thyssens, and the Ruhr industrialists who gave Hitler the money to take over Germany. Incidentally, it was also the Wall Street firm of Dillon, Read and company, of which James V. Forrestal was head, that loaned a lot of money to these same munitions makers. Today, Forrestal is secretary of national defense, William H. Draper, former vice president of Dillon, Read, is undersecretary of the army, while Paul Nitze, another vice president of Dillon, Read, holds a key economic job in the state department.”
** Dulles brothers:
*) September 28, 1944, Drew Pearson editorial in The Anniston Star (article appeared in many newspapers from late September to early October), pp. 4 and 9: “Even up until 1930, [John] Dulles continued optimistic about American investments in Germany. [John] Dulles made the statement in March 1939, that “these dynamic peoples (Germans, Italians and Japanese) determined to mould their states into a form which would permit them to take their destiny into their own hands and to attain that enlarged status which, under a liberal and peaceful form of government, had been denied them.” Dulles went on to explain and condone the effort of the dictator nations to “enlarge their status,” adding that “only hysteria entertains the idea that Germany, Italy or Japan contemplates war upon us.” This, no doubt, was the Dulles speaking who instinctively adopted the banker attitude of the Chamberlains and the Clivedon Set that some way must be found to safeguard investments in Germany. Undoubtedly this also was the attitude of one important client of Dulles’ law firm, the J. Henry Schroder Banking Corp. Dulles’ brother and law partner, Allen Dulles, is a director of both J. Henry Schroder and the Schroder Trust Company, and the affairs of this international banking house are intimately tied up with the Dulles law firm. Whether the Dulles brothers knew it or not, it was a member of this banking house, Baron von Schroder, who financed Hitler. This was on January 4, 1933, when Hitler had made desperate efforts to get into power but had not succeeded. It looked as if he might not succeed at all. Then, suddenly, through Franz von Papen, now retired as Nazi ambassador to Turkey, Hitler met banker Baron von Schroder. Almost every recent historian agrees on this incident. As told by Rudolf Olden in “Hitler:” “There was no improvement in the financial situation of the party. Symptoms of decline were multiplying and party ties were loosening. Goebbels in his diary speaks of rats abandoning the sinking ship… Once again he (Hitler) had got to the suicide stage. Then came salvation: money suddenly reappeared. It was von Papen who opened it to Hitler again. With the greatest secrecy, Hitler and Papen met at Cologne at the house of Herr von Schroder, a banker who enjoyed the confidence of the steel and coal magnates. Goebbels’ diary records triumphantly, ‘If this coup succeeds, then power is not so very remote’.” During the hectic months of 1933, Dulles was shuttling back and forth between New York and Berlin, trying to save something out of the financial wreck of Germany. He may have known nothing about the activities of his banker client. Or if he did, he may not have realized their significance. But certainly, during the succeeding years and right up until the outbreak of the war in 1939, John Dulles took the attitude that Germany was a misunderstood nation which had shown great investment promise and now should be treated with sympathy and understanding until she got back on her feet.”
* Harrimans: John Loftus and Mark Aarons, ‘The Secret war against the Jews’ (1994), pp. 360-361: “The firm originally was known as W. A. Harriman & Company. The link between Harriman & Company’s American investors and Thyssen started in the 1920s, through Union Banking Corporation, which began trading in 1924. In just one three-year period, the Harriman firm sold more than $50 million of German bonds to American investors. “Bert” Walker was Union Banking’s president, and the firm was located in the offices of Averill Harriman’s company at 39 Broadway in New York… In 1926… Walker made Prescott vice president of W. A. Harriman. The problem was that Walker’s specialty was companies that traded with Germany. As Thyssen and the other German industrialists consolidated Hitler’s political power in the 1930s, an American financial connection was needed. According to our sources, Union Banking became an out-and-out Nazi money-laundering machine. As we shall see, there is substantial evidence to support this charge. While the United States languished in the Depression, Walker made millions for his clients by investing in Germany’s economic revival. He decided to quit W. A. Harriman in 1931, to concentrate on his own firm, G. H. Walker, while his son-in-law stayed behind to run the show for Harriman. Some say that Walker left George Bush’s father holding the bag. Others say that Bush specialized in British investors in Nazi Germany, while Walker handled the Americans. In that same year Harriman & Company merged with a British-American investment company to become Brown Brothers, Harriman. Prescott Bush became one of the senior partners of the new company, which relocated to 59 Broadway, while Union Banking remained at 39 Broadway. But in 1934 Walker arranged to put his son-in-law on the board of directors of Union Banking. Walker also set up a deal to take over the North American operations of the Hamburg-Amerika Line, a cover for I. G. Farben’s Nazi espionage unit in the United States. The shipping line smuggled in German agents, propaganda, and money for bribing American politicians to see things Hitler’s way. The holding company was Walker’s American Shipping & Commerce, which shared the offices at 39 Broadway with Union Banking. In an elaborate paper trail, Harriman’s stock in American Shipping & Commerce was controlled by yet another holding company, the Harriman Fifteen Corporation, run out of Walker’s office. The directors of this company were Averill Harriman, Bert Walker, and Prescott Bush. In order to understand the character of the firm, it should be recalled that Brown Brothers, Harriman had a bad reputation, even among international bankers, as hard-nosed capitalists who exploited every opportunity for profit in a harsh and ruthless manner… A 1934 congressional investigation alleged that Walker’s “Hamburg-Amerika Line subsidized a wide range of pro-Nazi propaganda efforts both in Germany and the United States.” Walker did not know it, but one of his American employers, Dan Harkins, had blown the whistle on the spy apparatus to Congress. Harkins, one of our best sources, became Roosevelt’s first double agent… It was Allen Dulles [whom Harriman and Bush hired as lawyer]. According to Dulles’s client list at Sullivan & Cromwell, his first relationship with Brown Brothers, Harriman was on June 18, 1936. In January 1937 Dulles listed his work for the firm as “Disposal of Stan [Standard Oil] Investing stock.””
* Rockefellers #1 (Banking and partnership with the Schroders):
*) 1983, Charles Higham, ‘Trading with the Enemy’, p. 22: “As war approached, the links between the Rockefellers and the Nazi government became more and more firm. In 1936 the J. Henry Schroder Bank of New York had entered into a partnership with the Rockefellers. Schroder, Rockefeller and Company, Investment Bankers, was formed as part of an overall company that Time magazine disclosed as being “the economic booster of the Rome-Berlin Axis.” The partners in Schroder, Rockefeller and Company included Avery Rockefeller, Nephew of John D., Baron Bruno von Schroder in London, and Kurt von Schroder of the BIS and the Gestapo in Cologne. Avery Rockefeller owned 42 percent of Schroder, Rockefeller and Baron Bruno and his Nazi cousin 47 percent. Their lawyers were John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles of Sullivan and Cromwell. Allen Dulles (later of the Office of Strategic Services) was on the board of Schroder. Further connections linked the Paris branch of Chase to Schroder as well as the pro-Nazi Worms Bank and Standard Oil of New Jersey in France. Standard Oil’s Paris representatives were directors of the Banque de Paris et des Pays-Bas, which had intricate connections to the Nazis and Chase.”
*) July 20, 1936, Time Magazine, ‘Schroder Rockefeller’: “Along with two other executives, Avery Rockefeller resigned from Manhattan’s J. Henry Schroder Banking Corp. to set up a new investment house called Schroder Rockefeller & Co. which will handle the underwriting and general securities business given up by the U. S. branch of the famed old London firm under the Banking Act of 1933. J. Henry Schroder & Co. is one of the “Big Three” of British private banking, sharing the title with Baring Bros, and N. M. Rothschild & Sons. Founded in 1804, Schroder always has Schroders as partners, now boasts the third and fourth generations of the family in Baron Bruno Schroder and his son Helmut William Bruno Schroder. Formed shortly after the War to handle U. S. interests, J. Henry Schroder Banking Corp. will continue to operate as a commercial bank.”
*) July 10, 1939, Time Magazine, ‘Potash Politics’: “So did their London bankers and sales agents—J. Henry Schroder & Co.—a firm which is an economic booster of the Rome-Berlin Axis.”
*) BBC Timewatch series, ‘Banking with Hitler’: described how Chase Paris completely cooperated with the Nazis, including the persecution of the Jews. (also described in 1983, Charles Higham, ‘Trading with the Enemy’, p. 25)
* Rockefellers #2 (Standard Oil):
*) 1983, Charles Higham, ‘Trading with the Enemy’, pp. 46-47: “On March 26, Arnold appeared before Truman in an exceptionally buoyant mood in order to lay in front of the committee his specific charges against the oil company. He had dug up a great deal of dirt. He produced documents showing that Standard and Farben in Germany had literally carved up the world markets, with oil and chemical monopolies established all over the map. He flourished papers showing that Farish had refused to send vital patent information to Canada because Germany and Canada were at war. He showed how farish had flagrantly disregarded Lend-Lease and good neighbor policies in his connivance with Hitler. He zeroed in on the subject of synthetic rubber, pointing out that it had been denied to the U.S. Navy, and that Farish and Howard had deliberately sidetracked a Navy representative from seeing the process. He charged that cables showed Standard’s arrangements with Japan that were to continue throughout any conflict or break in trade… Roosevelt was very unhappy with the hearings. Publicly exposing Teagle and farish was not helping him use them for America’s purposes. He had enough of Arnold as the hearings concluded… Ickes wrote in his diary on April 5 that Arnold had been more or less gagged. The War and Navy departments insured that Roosevelt suspended any further antitrust actions against the corporations for the duration. They couldn’t (as the Rockefeller Plaza meeting had made clear) run an Army and Navy without Standard.”
1983, Charles Higham, ‘Trading with the Enemy’, pp. 59-62: “The [oil] shipments to Spain [coming in part from Standard Oil subsidiaries] indirectly assisted the Axis through Spanish transferences to Hamburg. At the same time, there were desperate shortages in the United States, long lines at the gas stations, and even petroleum rationing. While American civilians and the armed services suffered alike from restrictions, more gasoline went to Spain than it did to domestic customers… Asked by The New York Times how this could be explained, a spokesman for Cordell Hull declared blandly that the oil came from the Caribbean and not from the United States and was hauled by Spanish tankers. The evasiveness of the response was typical. The spokesman also neglected to mention that shipments were going to Vichy and to French Indian possessions under collaborative influence. Hayes revealed that the gasoline and petroleum products equaled the full capacity of the Spanish tanker fleet. He neglected to add that much of that fleet proceeded regularly to Germany and helped to fuel Nazis, including their embassies and consulates and military installations, tanks, armored cars as well as Spanish troop transports on the Russian front, fighting against the Soviet Union, which was America’s ally. In addition to oil, 25,000 tons of sulphate of ammonia were shipped to Spain in 1943 along with 10,000 tons of cotton, despite American shortages in both commodities… Ickes had accumulated a dossier from his special staff of investigators. The dossier showed that in fact oil was going to Germany, that German agents were operating freely on Spanish territory, and that Franco had just released 400 million pesetas of credit to Germany. This would insure the Germans a flow of all the oil it needed, plus unlimited supplies of wolfram, the ore from which tungsten, a hard substance capable of penetrating steel, was made… For a brief period the truth emerged about Spain. Spanish ships were searched at sea, showing that oil, platinum, industrial diamonds, and liver extracts, from which the Germans made a tonic for fliers, submarine crews, and even shock troops, were coming from Argentina and the Caribbean on Spanish vessels, admitted through the British blockade by American licenses. On january 28, 1944, the British government cut off oil, gasoline, and other petroleum products to Spain. Franco protested violently. Dean Acheson remained sensibly silent. It was a brief period of sanity. On May 2, 1944, after only three and a half months of suspension, the oil lobby won a fight to restore shipments and to allow limited wolfram exports to Germany as well… 48,000 tons a month of American oil and 1,100 tons of wolfram began to flow back to the Nazis… On September 22, 1947, Judge Charles Clark delivered the final word on the subject. He said, “Standard Oil can be considered an enemy national in view of its relationships with I.G. Farben after the United States and Germany had become active enemies.” The appeal was denied.”
*) November 6, 1947, Oakland Tribune, ‘Farben-U.S. Oil Firm Pacts That Hit War Effort Bared at Trial’: “More than a year after the war began in Europe the United States suddenly awoke to the fact that it had no supplies of rubber which the Japanese couldn’t cut off in a moment—as they later did… The way in which the biggest industrial nation in the world was crutched into this ridiculous and helpless position is one of the charges against 24 leading officials of I.G. Farben… Standard Oil, six of its subsidiaries, and three of its top executives already have paid fines of $5000 each in U.S. courts for their part in this unhappy picture. They didn’t admit their guilt, but they didn’t contest the action… Not only rubber is involved, but a host of other chemical developments… Farben and Standard Oil entered a solemn compact in 1929, dividing the world between them. Farben would be supreme in chemicals; Standard in petroleum. Where these two broad spheres rubbed shoulders, as they did inevitably, there would be further talks in the same spirit of “goodwill” which was recorded at the time… The Americans never received technical co-operation on rubber production, it said. Even with the “Jasco” deal, they received nothing of any importance, it went on… Farben in its turn, it said, had received from the Americans “over and beyond the agreement many very valuable contributions for the synthesis and improvement of motor fuels and lubrication oils, which just now during the war are most useful to us, and we also received other advantages from them.””
*) 1943, George Seldes, ‘Facts and Fascism’, p. 259: “Standard Oil’s Farish never denied he shipped oil to a Japanese navy which made possible the attack on Pearl Harbor and Japan’s ability to resist the Anglo-American Navies today. He excused himself by saying that Standard Oil was “an international concern.” Standard Oil supplied Franco-Spain after 1939, National Maritime Union men giving testimony that oil went to Germany and Italy, for use against France and Britain. Technically, Standard Oil was not committing treason then because the United States was not at war.”
*) 1994, John Loftus and Mark Aarons, ‘The Secret war against the Jews’, pp. 164-166: “Rockefeller had discussed the position of Latin American spy chief with Harry Hopkins, one of President Roosevelt’s top aides. It was hardly the kind of sales pitch that should have endeared Rockefeller to the Roosevelt administration. Rockefeller proposed that while Hitler and Churchill fought each other to death, the United States should be ready to pick up the pieces by seizing the opportunity to increase the economic influence of American businessmen. In effect, Rockefeller had proposed to Hopkins that regardless of which side won the war, the Nazis or the Allies, the country’s international position had to be safeguarded by the use of “economic measures that are competitively effective against totalitarian techniques.” By “totalitarian” Rockefeller meant the Soviets, not the Germans. As outlined earlier, the Rockefellers just happened to own the largest stock in Standard of New Jersey and were then in partnership with the Nazi-controlled I. G. Farben, which held the second largest share of the Rockefeller-controlled oil company, to develop synthetic gas and rubber. The sources among the former intelligence officers whom we interviewed on the Rockefellers say that the family was in complete agreement with the Dulles brothers and Forrestal on the question of preserving U.S. profits, no matter who won the war. After he accepted the job as head of the Office of Inter-American Affairs, Rockefeller told his staff, in essence, that their job was to use the war to take over Latin American markets. While Britain and France fought a bloody struggle against the Third Reich, Rockefeller’s primary concern was to monopolize Latin America’s raw materials and exclude the Europeans. Rockefeller’s definition of Europe was very interesting: He meant the British, not the Nazis. As discussed earlier in this chapter, his friend Forrestal had authorized the Rockefeller oil company, Standard of New Jersey, to ship oil to the Nazis in 1941. That was before the United States entered the war, but Pearl Harbor made no difference to Rockefeller. All through the war, at least while Rockefeller was in charge, everything the Germans wanted in South America they got, from refueling stations to espionage bases. The British, on the other hand, had to pay in cash. Behind Rockefeller’s rhetoric of taking measures in Latin America for the national defense stood a naked grab for profits. Under the cloak of his official position, Rockefeller and his cronies would take over Britain’s most valuable Latin American properties. If the British resisted, he would effectively block raw materials and food supplies desperately needed for Britain’s fight against Hitler. It was Rockefeller’s own variant of Allen Dulles’s oil blackmail. Naturally, Rockefeller’s cronies were members of the Dulles-Forrestal clique. To implement his economic program to drive the British out of the lucrative Latin American markets, in each country Rockefeller set up coordinating committees composed of reactionary executives from Standard Oil, General Electric, and United Fruit, which promptly bled South America dry. It was just the sort of thing that endeared Rockefeller to the State Department. In November 1944 he was asked to serve as assistant secretary of state for Latin American affairs. Rockefeller did not exactly make South America safe for democracy. He was too busy shoring up profits to be bothered with minor details such as convincing the Latin American governments to declare war on the Axis let alone send troops. By February 1945 one-third of the nations on the continent had not even entered the war, while Dulles’s friend, President Juan Peron of Argentina, led a bloc of decidedly pro-Fascist countries that were eager to help the architects of the Third Reich escape with their assets intact. In the end, these countries had to be ordered to declare war on Germany and Japan, under threat of exclusion from the United Nations… It was all a farce, of course. Argentina did not declare war until late April, two weeks before the German surrender… Rockefeller’s political and corporate strategy was to use his bloc of Fascist nations to “buy” the majority vote at the UN to favor U.S.-sponsored resolutions.”
 *) John Hargrave, ‘Montagu Norman’ (1942), p. 217: “Early in 1934 a select group of City financiers gathered in Norman’s room behind the windowless walls. Those present included Sir Alan Anderson, partner in Anderson, Green & Co.; Lord (then Sir Josiah) Stamp, Bank of England Director, and Chairman of the L. M. S. Railway; the Hon. Alexander Shaw, Chairman of P. & O. Steamship Lines; Sir Robert Kindersley, a partner in Lazard Brothers, Charles Hambro, banker; and F.C. Tiarks, head of J. Henry Schroder & Co. Governor Norman spoke of the political situation in Europe. A new power had established itself, a great “stabilizing force”, namely, Nazi Germany. Norman advised his co-workers to include Hitler in their plans for financing Europe. There was no opposition… Although it may be said that Montagu Norman is not a Fascist, yet, in view of his activities during the rise of Hitlerism, it might be true to label him a crypto-fascist?” Bought book to verify quote, which has been mentioned by Eustace Mullins.
*) 1966, Carroll Quigley, ‘Tragedy & Hope’, p. 645: “The Entente governments were aware of these German problems, but, instead of seeking to increase them, they sought to alleviate them. When economic and political duress was put by Germany on the countries of southeastern Europe in October and November 1938, Chamberlain defended Germany’s right to do so in the House of Commons. No economic support was granted to these countries to help them to resist, except for a loan to Turkey. On the contrary, the British government, through the Federation of British Industries, began to negotiate with Germany to create a complete system of industrial cooperation, with cartels dividing the world’s markets and fixing prices for over fifty industrial groups. A coal agreement was signed, at Britain’s request, at the end of January 1939, and a general agreement was signed between the Federation of British Industries and the Reichsgruppe Industrie on March 16, 1939.”
 1943, George Seldes, ‘Facts and Fascism’, pp. 57-58, 63-64.
 *) 1940, H. G. Wells, ‘The New World Order’: “Such “good Christians” can be almost as bitterly critical as I am of the continual pressure upon the faithful by that inner group of Italians in Rome, subsidized by the Fascist government, who pull the strings of Church policy throughout the world, so as to do this or that tortuous or uncivilised thing, to cripple education, to persecute unorthodox ways of living. It is to the influence of the Church that we must ascribe the foolish support by the British Foreign Office of Franco, that murderous little “Christian gentleman”, in his overthrow of the staggering liberal renascence of Spain. It is the Roman Catholic influence the British and French have to thank, for the fantastic blundering that involved them in the defence of the impossible Polish state and its unrighteous acquisitions; it affected British policy in respect to Austria and Czechoslovakia profoundly, and now it is doing its utmost to maintain and develop a political estrangement between Russia and the Western world by its prejudiced exacerbation of the idea that Russia is “anti-God” while we Westerners are little children of the light, gallantly fighting on the side of the Cross.”
*) 1943, George Seldes, ‘Facts and Fascism’, p. 58: “When Claude Bowers, American ambassador to Spain, suggested to the British Ambassador that if Franco won, Britain would have Hitler at Gibraltar and perhaps lose control of the Mediterranean, “the lifeline of empire,” the British Ambassador answered that “private interests at home are stronger than national interests.” He meant that Rio Tinto and other Spanish mine, electricity railroad and other stockholders in Britain preferred Fascism and even Hitler in Spain to the safety of Britain itself.”
*) 1966, Carroll Quigley, ‘Tragedy & Hope’, pp. 602-603: “Although the evidence for Axis intervention in Spain was overwhelming and was admitted by the Powers themselves early in 1937, the British refused to admit it and refused to modify the nonintervention policy, although France did relax its restrictions on its frontier sometimes, notably in April-June 1938. Britain’s attitude was so devious that it can hardly be untangled, although the results are clear enough. The chief result was that in Spain a Left government friendly to France was replaced by a Right government unfriendly to France and deeply obligated to Italy and Germany. The evidence is clear that the real sympathies of the London government favored the [Franco] rebels, although it had to conceal the fact from public opinion in Britain (since this opinion favored the Loyalists over Franco by 57 percent to 7 percent, according to a public-opinion poll of March 1938)… On December 18, 1936, Eden admitted that the government had exaggerated the danger of war four months earlier to get the nonintervention agreement accepted… The nonintervention agreement, as practiced, was neither an aid to peace nor an example of neutrality, but was clearly enforced in such a way as to give aid to [Franco’s] rebels and place all possible obstacles in the way of the Loyalist government suppressing the rebellion.”
 *) 1943, George Seldes, ‘Facts and Fascism’, p. 58: “The so-called “Asia for the Asiatics” doctrine, which means simply “Asia for Japan,” found Baron Hachirumon Mitsui its chief exponent. This is a Monroe Doctrine which marches with banners and is followed by an army of salesmen and exploiters. Hachirumon’s fascist imperialism burned even more ardently in his successor, Baron Takakimi Mitsui. “Japan’s financial oligarchy,” wrote Anthony Jenkinson for the Institute of Pacific Relations, “is composed of great family trusts known as Zaibatsu. Its leading members are the houses of Mitsui, Mitsubishi, Sumitomo and Yashuda. Between them they own the greater part of industry, trade, banking, and shipping. By 1937 they controlled more than one third of the total deposits in private banks, 70% of the deposits in all trust companies, and one third of total foreign trade. By controlling the banks, they controlled the smaller credit institutions throughout the country.”… There is almost no middle class [in Japan]… In Japan, the “peak associations” are dominated by the Zaibatsu, or four ruling families, who are comparatively more powerful and richer than the thirteen ruling families of America.”
 *) April 6, 1942, Capital Times, ‘Standard Oil — Axis Ally’: “In September, 1939, Standard cabled to the Japanese monopoly, Mitsui, proposing that together they prepare the way at once for the re-establishment of commercial relations “after any interruptions in our trade,” Which Standard feared might come. In other words, American industry believes that either the Axis will triumph or there will be a negotiated peace.”
*) December 11, 1945, Council Bluffs Nonpareil (Iowa), ‘Farben tested poison gas on camp inmates’: “Its [Farben’s] cartel agreements numbered over 2,000 and included agreements with such major industrial concerns as Standard Oil of New Jersey… E. I. du Pont de Nemours… Imperial Chemical Industries of Great Britain… and the Mitsui interests of Japan.”
*) 1943, George Seldes, ‘Facts and Fascism’, pp. 49-50: “In addition according to the San Francisco journalist John Pittman, “among the owners of the Japanese business are International General Electric, which operates plants through its subsidiary, Tokyo Shibaura; Westinghouse Electric International, associated with Mitsubishi Electric Manufacturing Co.; Tide Water Associated Oil, handled by Mitsubishi; Libby-Owens-Ford, represented by Nippon Plate Glass Co.; Standard Oil, with a known direct investment of $5,000,000, exclusive of frozen credits and oil in storage; Ford, and General Motors, with approximately $10,000,000 sunk in Japan proper; Eastmen Kodak, and Singer Sewing Machine, with big organizations in the Japanese Empire; United Engineering & Foundry Co., holding a large stake in the Shibaura-United Engineering Co… In Japan one of Mitsui’s partly owned corporations is the Nippon Steel Works, but this firm was controlled by Vickers. Their French connection was through the Franco-Japanese Bank, founded with the aid of Schneider Creusot, whose 1933 report stated that “our bank has acquired important participation in various activities of the Mitsui Group, a group destined to have a fine future.” Baron Hachirumon Mitsui was reported at the time as controlling 65% of the industry of Japan, with the Japanese royal family owning a large interest in the Mitsui Consortium.”
 *) 1947, William L. Langer (History professor at Harvard; high ranking OSS official; special assistant to the Secretary of State), ‘Our Vichy gamble’, pp. 167-168: “His [Darlan’s] policy of collaboration with Germany could count on more than enough eager supporters among French industrial and banking interests–in short, those who even before the war had turned to Nazi Germany and had looked to Hitler as the saviour of Europe from Communism… Many important banking groups must be included in this category: the Banque Nationale pour le Commerce et l’Industrie (which was Laval’s group par excellence), the Banque de l’Indochine (of which Baudoin was the chief), the Banque de Paris et des Pays Bas, and others. But peculiarly identified with the Darlan regime was the Banque Worms et Cie, headed by Hippolyte Worms, with Gabriel Leroy-Ladurie and Jacques Bernaud as the dominant figures. To realize the extent to which members of the Banque Worms group had been taken into the government by the autumn of 1941 a brief survey of the council and the Secretaries of State will be most profitable… All of the collaborationist banks had considerable interests in North Africa and the other French colonies, and maintained branches there. The Banque Worms, for example, owned extensive mines, shipping lines, and commercial companies in North Africa. It and others rapidly drained North Africa of such resources as could be made available to the Germans. It has been estimated that during 1941 alone some five million tons of goods were landed at French Mediterranean ports, mostly from North Africa. Included were such strategic materials as cobalt, molybdenum, manganese, and high-grade iron ore, to say nothing of foodstuffs. Probably sixty to eighty per cent of all these imports went to the Germans. Fortunately for them, the great banking and industrial interests, always intent on playing safe, were permitted by the Germans to transfer their huge profits to their North African branches. Calculations have shown that prior to the invasion of North Africa the French banks taken together transferred no less than twenty-five billion francs in this way.”
*) 1966, Carroll Quigley, ‘Tragedy & Hope’, p. 689: “There was also considerable pressure behind the scenes from anti-democratic French industrialists in monopolistic lines lines such as chemicals, light metals, synthetic fibers, and electrical utilities. These industrialists, together with politicians like Laval and private or commercial banks, like the Banque Worms, or the Banque de l’Indochine, had been negotiating cartel and other agreements with Germany for ten years, and felt an armitage would offer a splendid opportunity to complete and enforce these agreements.”
 BBC Timewatch series, ‘Banking with Hitler’: described how Chase Paris completely cooperated with the Nazis, including the persecution of the Jews. (also described in 1983, Charles Higham, ‘Trading with the Enemy’, p. 25)
 The first Lord Kindersley kept the French branch alive in the early 1930s through his influence at the Bank of England. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, 1st Lord Kindersley (1871–1954): “Kindersley’s prominent role in national economic affairs in mid-1931 masked profound crisis and management shortcomings at Lazards. While in July 1931 Kindersley was in Paris seeking vital support from the Bank of France, Lazards was on the brink of collapse, the result of maladministration in the firm’s Brussels office, which caused a £6 million loss and obliterated its capital. The need to conceal the precarious position of a leading London house at a moment of national crisis led to the resuscitation of Lazards through Bank of England support; and £3 million was made available, followed by additional support in 1932 when Lazard Frères of Paris ran into difficulties.”
Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, 2nd Lord Kindersley (1899–1976): “In 1919, after war service Kindersley joined Lazard Brothers & Co., the leading merchant bank, where his father was chairman and where he received a favoured apprenticeship. He was sent out to work in Lazards’ businesses in Paris…”
October 20, 1965, The Times, ‘Lord Hampden’: “Lord Perth and A. D. Marris write:–Two of us who worked with Lord Hampden (Tommy Brand [4th Viscount, who was a leading figure at Lazards until his death in 1965; had joined in 1931] as he was then known to us all) in peace and war would like to supplement your account of his career by recalling his very close connexion and love of France. When he married and went abroad to learn about continental banking, he and his wife first went to Paris. He spent some nine months as a volunteer in the office of Lazard Freres et Cie where he was warmly welcomed by the then partners. He learnt not only much about banking but, in their society and that of their friends, a new and wider life was opened to him. It was natural, therefore, in 1940 when Jean Monnet, already an old friend [who was indebted to the Lazard Bank],.. asked Tommy to join him as one of his chief assistants in London… Under Lord Salter (then Sir Arthur Salter) [Pilgrims; Milner Group] Tommy carried on for him the work he had been doing for Monnet on war supplies…”
 According to EIR: November 1940, Coordinator of Information (COI; predecessor of the OSS), confidential report titled ‘”Synarchie” and the policy of the Banque Worms group’ (only those aspects of which PEHI has seen a photocopy compilation as published by Executive Intelligence Review Australia; important note: the COI was founded in July 1941, eight months after EIR claims this COI report was written): “In recent reports there have been several references to the growing political power of the Banque Worms group in France, which included amongst its members such ardent collaborationists as Pucheu, Benoit-Menchen, Laroy-Ladurie, Bouthillier, and representatives of the big French industrial organizations. 2. After unavoidable delay we have now obtained the following information, dated early November, from a source with good political contacts in Vichy, who has provided reliable information in the past. Similarity of aims of “Synarchie” and Banque Worms. (i) The reactionary movement known as “Synarchie” has been in existence in France for nearly a century. Its aim has always been to carry out a bloodless revolution, inspired by the upper classes, aimed at producing a form of government by “technicians” (the founder of the movement was a “polytechnician”), under which home and foreign policy would be subordinated to international economy. (ii) The aims of the Banque Worms group are the same as those of “Synarchie”, and the leaders of the two groups are, in most cases, identical. Policy in regard to Great Britain. (xi) In regard to Great Britain the more particular aims of the group are as follows: (a) to bring about the fall of the Churchill Government by creating the belief in the country that a more energetic government is needed to prosecute the war; it is recognized that an effective means of creating suspicion of the Government’s efficiency would be to induce the resignation of Lord Beaverbrook; (b) to bring about the formation of a new Government including Sir Samuel Hoare, Lord Beaverbrook and Mr. Hore-Belisha. (Note. The source has added that in the Worms group it is believed that those circles in Great Britain who are favorably disposed to their plans, are most critical of Mr. Churchill, Lord Halifax and Captain Margesson.) (c) through the medium of Sir Samuel Hoare to bring about an agreement between British industry and the Franco-German “bloc”; (d) to protect Anglo-Saxon interests on the continent;”
August 4, 2006 issue, Jeffrey Steinberg for Executive Intelligence Review (EIR), ‘Fact Sheet: The Enemy is Oligarchism’ (this report quotes from the above document. Since PEHI has not seen a photocopy of the entire document, the sections quoted in this article which did not appear in the partial photocopy, are quoted here separately.): “The COI report then went on to detail the political agenda of the international Synarchy, as of August 1940: “(a) to check the ‘Revolution Nationale’ insofar as its development might entail the creation of a new social order; (b) to check any new social schemes which might tend to weaken the power of the international financiers and industrialists; (c) to work for the ultimate complete control of all industry by international finance and industry; (d) to protect Jewish and Anglo-Saxon interests.” The document went on to note that there is sympathy for this Synarchist scheme among some key Nazi circle in Germany including “both Goering and Dr. Funk [Walther Funk, who was Nazi Minister of Economics, president of the Reichsbank, and Nazi Germany’s representative on the Bank for International Settlements, following Hjalmar Schacht–ed.]… It is alleged that certain industrial circles in Great Britain are also in sympathy with the movement. Some headway is claimed to have been made in securing the adhesion of big U.S. industry to the movement.”… The document concluded, “In regard to Germany, it is hoped ultimately to eliminate Hitler, Goebbels, and Himmler with his Gestapo, from the political scene, thus facilitating the formation of an Anglo-Franco-German economic bloc.”
 Information on France’s Synarchy movement:
*) August 23, 1941, Huntingdon (Pa.) Daily News, ‘Sabotage, Recruiting For Free France Present Problems To Nazis In Paris’: “Reports in the German controlled Paris press of the “uncovering” of a world-wide revolutionary plot, said to have American financial backing, diverted attention today from the use of force by German troops to subdue hostile factions in Paris. Rumors of a “plot,” circulating for days, finally were published by the Paris weekly, L’Appel, which added a weird touch by associating the plotters with the mysterious deaths of the engineer, Jean Coutrot and, a few days later, of his secretary, Albert Thealet. L’Appel said Coutrot committed suicide “by order,” and said he was the founder of the new revolutionary movement known as “synarchy,” which, according to L’Appel, has its roots among graduates of the French Polytechnic School, who comprise most of the technical officers of the French army. The plotters, L’Appel said, have connections in Britain and in the United States, especially with the American DuPont and Ford interests. “Synarchy” leaders, according to the newspaper, have access to the United States embassy in Vichy “so it is not surprising to see Admiral (William D.) Leahy (the American ambassador) mixed excitedly in the affair.” “Synarchy” was defined as the opposite of anarchy—seeking a strong concentration of power in contrast to anarchy’s dispersal of authority. L’Appel published what it said was Coutrot’s plan, calling for the earliest possible peace, the creation of a league of major nations of Europe and Africa under the name “Paneurafrica,” and five leagues of minor nations. The major nations would pool their colonial interests to form a world empire.”
*) October 30, 1941, Dunkirk Evening Observer, ‘Darlan’s regime being challenged by new clique’: “Admiral Jean Francois Darlan’s regime as active head of the Vichy government is being challenged, authentic advices from Europe reported today, by a clique of young French cabinet officers headed by Interior Minister Pierre Pucheu… The Darlan-Pucheu test of strength, it was said, also involves bitter competition between two huge French Banking institutions for the profits growing out of the Franco-German industrial “collaboration” program. So far Marshal Henri Philippe Petain is said to have supported Darlan, preventing the Pucheu group from seizing control. The Pucheu group was said to constitute what is known as the “synarchy” faction, favoring a frank dictatorship in France pledged to work in close political as well as economic collaboration with Germany… Cabinet ministers siding with Puchei were said to include Minister of Finance and Economy Yves Boulhillier; Secretary of State Jacques Benoit-Mechin [managing director Worms Bank] who now handles Franco-German negotiations; communications and transport minister Jean Berthelol; industrial production minister Francois Lehideux; Propaganda Secretary Paul Marion; and Jacques Barnaud [administrator Worms Bank] who handles Franco-German economic negotiations. The group reportedly represents and supports the great Worms banking interests which formerly was dominant in the financing of French trade. The opposing group, lead by Darlan, is regarded as a more conservative military clique. It also is tied in with banking interests, in this case the Banque de Paris et Pays Bas which thus far has provided the chief financing for French-German economic collaboration.”
*) April 9, 1945, Tucson Daily Citizen, ‘Petain will be tried in absentia’: “Marshal Philippe Henri Petain will be tried in absentia soon as a traitor to France by a special high court of justice in one of the most important trials in French history… The justice spokesman said the court will show that before the war, Petain was a member of the Cagoule and the Synarchie, two Fascist secret societies. The prosecution will attempt to show that Petain was in contact secretly with the Germans before the war. For years, enemies of Petain have charged him with being involved in Cagoulard plots, but no direct evidence ever had been produced. Pierre Puchou, Vichy minister of the interior, later condemned to death as a traitor and executed by the DeGaulle government in Algiers, contributed large sums to the Cagoule.”
*) November 9, 1946, The Nation, ‘The People’s Front’: “Michael Sordet, in a remarkably documented article, The Secret League of Monopoly Capitalism, published in the scholarly Swiss review, Schweiner Annalen (No. 2, 1946- 47), gives us a full description of the synarchist movement in Europe. He describes the synarchists as “the representatives of international high finance,” who not only helped to bring fascism to power in Germany and to provoke the war, from which they reaped enormous profits, but who contributed to the defeat of France and the rise of Petain and his traitorous clique… Le Mouvement Synarchique d’Empire (M. S. E.) was founded in Paris in 1922… Its original promoters numbered seven, three of whom have since been identified as Baron Leo de Nervo, with connections in some fifty financial and heavy-industry enterprises… Maxime Renaudin, a financier known to represent international Catholic interests, and Jean Coutrot, a close friend of Marshal Petain. The M. S. E. is rigidly aristocratic in structure: members are recruited in powerful big-business circles and are expected to enrol new adherents from among their friends… Frenchmen in general learned of the existence of the M. S. E. in the summer of 1941 when Jean Coutrot died under mysterious circumstances which were never cleared up. A collaborationist newspaper, l’Appel, which carded the announcement of his death, revealed at the same time that most of the ministers and generals in the Vichy entourage belonged to this secret society. Coutrot had told an intimate friend that the directing body of the M. S. E. consisted of four people, but he mentioned no names. What are the contents of the “Pacte synarchiste revolutionnaire,” so vigilantly controlled? The most important section provides for the division of the world into five great federations imperiales, or societe mineures des nations. Metropolitan Britain and its colonies and dominions make up one. The federation of pan-American nations comprises the United States and the other countries of the Western continent with the exception of Canada. The pan-Eurasian federation consists of the Soviet Union, including all its Asiatic republics but excluding Finland and the Baltic states. The pan-European- African federation takes in Western Europe, including Finland, the Scandinavian and Baltic countries, and the African continent excluding the British colonies. China and Japan head the pan-Asiatic federation.”
*) November 16, 1946, The Nation, ‘The People’s Front’: “Despite the highly secret character of the M. S. E., the following men have been identified as members: Paul Baudoin [named as a major Opus Dei player], director of the Banque d’Indo-Chine and a friend of Mussolini, who with the help of the attractive Heltne de Portes became right-hand adviser to Premier Paul Reynaud in the last months before France’s capitulation; Jacques Gudrard, a banker who held the post of Ambassador to Lisbon under the Vichy regime; Jacques Barnaud of the Banque Worms, a great favorite with Goring, who was responsible for handling over to the Germans the major French chemical industries headed by the Francolor trust; Jacques Benoit- Mechin, author of a book on the Reichswehr, who was rewarded for his services to the German army by being named a director of the Banque Worms after the 1940 armistice; Pierre Pucheu, Vichy Minister of the Interior and organizer of the Franco-German steel cartel. Today the M. S. E. is attempting to restore those intimate ties between French and German industrialists which it had so painstakingly built up before the war… In his article in the Schweizer Anmalen, Sordet hints that the main base of operations of the Synarchists is shifting from Europe to the United States, and he names Admiral Leahy, Robert Murphy, and du Pont de Nemours not as members but as individuals they hope to use to make contact with influential Catholic and industrial groups here.”
*) 1947, William L. Langer (History professor at Harvard; high ranking OSS official; special assistant to the Secretary of State), ‘Our Vichy gamble’, pp. 167-168: “His [Darlan’s] policy of collaboration with Germany could count on more than enough eager supporters among French industrial and banking interests–in short, those who even before the war had turned to Nazi Germany and had looked to Hitler as the saviour of Europe from Communism. These were the elements which had originally backed Petain and Weygand–elements that stuck to the program after both these men had begun to back away from it. These people were as good fascists as any in Europe. They dreaded the Popular Front like the plague and were convinced that they could prosper even under Hitler’s iron rod. Many of them had long had extensive and intimate business relations with German interests and were still dreaming of a new system of “synarchy,” which meant government of Europe on fascist principles by an international brotherhood of financiers and industrialists. Laval had long been associated with this group. Darlan, though not one of the “boys,” was clever enough to take them into camp. If they worshipped Laval, they served Darlan, as they would have served anyone who played the game. “This group,” wrote Ambassador Biddle from London early in 1942, “should not be regarded as Frenchmen, any more than their corresponding members in Germany should be regarded as |Germans, for the interests of both groups are so intermingled as to be indistinguishable; their whole interest is focused upon furtherance of their industrial and financial stakes.” Many important banking groups must be included in this category: the Banque Nationale pour le Commerce et l’Industrie (which was Laval’s group par excellence), the Banque de l’Indochine (of which Baudoin was the chief), the Banque de Paris et des Pays Bas, and others. But peculiarly identified with the Darlan regime was the Banque Worms et Cie, headed by Hippolyte Worms, with Gabriel Leroy-Ladurie and Jacques Bernaud as the dominant figures. To realize the extent to which members of the Banque Worms group had been taken into the government by the autumn of 1941 a brief survey of the council and the Secretaries of State will be most profitable…”
*) 1969, William L. Shirer, ‘The Collapse of the Third Republic’, pp. 218-219: “Later Coutrot would be generally credited with being the man behind a technocratic movement called Synarchie, which to this day, despite many studies of it, remains – at least to this writer, who has pondered most of them – somewhat of a mystery… That some Synarchists organized as far back as 1922 a secret society with revolutionary aims has been established. It was called “Le Mouvement Synarchique d’Empire,” or MSE, and its secret “Pact,” containing “Thirteen Fundamental Points and 598 Propositions” for the Synarchist revolution, was discovered by the Vichy police in 1941 and published after the war… so far as one can make out from reading the lengthy document the movement would set up a sort of super monopoly capitalism, with competition abolished and endless plans drawn up for production and distribution, the whole – as well as the government – to be run by knowledgeable technocrats… That at one time the MSE was linked to the terrorist Cagoule [CSAR] also seems clear… ” Here William Shirer confirms the rumors about the Synarchy, except that he believes this group “never got close to staging a revolution.” This appears to be somewhat true, as the fascist militants which tried to overthrow the French government before the Nazi invasion failed at their mission.
*) 1983, Charles Higham, ‘Trading with the Enemy’, p. 27: “[Otto] Abetz paid 250,000 francs a month to fascist editors and publishers in order to run their vicious anti-Semitic newspapers. He financed the terrorist army known as the Mouvement Synarchique Revolutionnaire, which flushed out anti-Nazi cells in Paris and saw to it they were liquidated.”
 1943, George Seldes, ‘Facts and Fascism’, p. 279 (lists the thirteen wealthiest families in the U.S. of the time, identified by the Temporary National Economic Committee by looking at the stockholdings in the 200 largest non-financial corporations):
 Described in great detail in Carroll Quigley’s book ‘Tragedy and Hope’. One of the more Well known excerpts, pp. 581-583: “The “anti-Bolsheviks,” who were also anti-French, were extremely important from 1919 to 1926, but then decreased to little more than a lunatic fringe, rising again in numbers and influence after 1934 to dominate the real policy of the government in 1939. In the earlier period the chief figures in this group were Lord Curzon, Lord D’Abernon, and General Smuts. They did what they could to destroy reparations, permit German rearmament, and tear down what they called “French militarism.”… The anti-Bolsheviks, including D’Abernon, Smuts, Sir John Simon, and H. A. L. Fisher (Warden of All Souls College), were willing to go to any extreme to tear down France and build up Germany.” Chamberlain was part of this group. Pp. 308-309: “With these American loans Germany [under the Dawes plan] was able to rebuild her industrial system to make it the second best in the world by a wide margin, to keep up her prosperity and her standard of living in spite of the defeat and reparations, and to pay reparations without either a balanced budget or a favorable balance of trade. By these loans Germany’s creditors were able to pay their war debts to England and to the United States without sending goods or services. Foreign exchange went to Germany as loans, back to Italy, Belgium, France, and Britain as reparations, and finally back to the United States as payments on war debts. The only things wrong with the system were (a) that it would collapse as soon as the United States ceased to lend, and (b) in the meantime debts were merely being shifted from one account to another and no one was really getting any nearer to solvency.”
 1926, Adolf Hitler, ‘Mein Kampf’, p. 472
 John Hargrave, ‘Montagu Norman’ (1942), p. 217 (see note 53 for excerpt)
 1926, Adolf Hitler, ‘Mein Kampf’, p. 119
 The following quotes have been collected a few years back. They list other occasions on which Hitler spoke favorably about an Anglo-German peace, as he had done in his biography ‘Mein Kampf’ years earlier. I just copied these quotes from a Word document without looking over all the specific sources again-you’ll get the point soon enough. Remember that David Irving, whose book ‘Hitler’s War’ (the 2001 revision) is regularly quoted here, really is a fascist who still thinks that Churchill committed a sin by going to war with Germany. I’ve seen no evidence, however, that Irving made up Hitler’s pro-England statements. It’s just his motives that I question.
*) 2000, Ian Kershaw, ‘Hitler 1936-1945, Nemesis’, p. 295: “Hitler was alleged to have told his entourage a fortnight or so later that ‘the army is the backbone of England and the Empire. If we smash the invasion corps, the Empire is doomed. Since we neither want nor can inherit it, we must leave it the chance.'” This is a quote from the book ‘Er war mein chef. Aus dem Nachlass der Sekretärin von Adolf Hitler’ from Christa Schroeder (1985- 1989, 4th edition), p. 105. The comment was allegedly made by Hitler on June 17, 1940. Schroeder, who died in 1984, was Hitler’s secretary from 1933 until his suicide in April 1945.
*) David Irving: “Hitler told Major Quisling on the eighteenth [of August 1940]: ‘After making one proposal after another to the British on the reorganisation of Europe, I now find myself forced against my will to fight this war against Britain. I find myself in the same position as Martin Luther, who had just as little desire to fight Rome but was left with no alternative.'”
*) David Irving: Halder wrote on the thirteenth [of July 1940]: “The Führer . . . accepts that he may have to force Britain to make peace; but he is reluctant to do so, because if we do defeat the British in the field, the British Empire will fall apart. Germany will not profit therefrom. We should[n’t?] be paying with German blood for something from which only Japan, America, and others would draw benefit.'”
*) David Irving: An adjutant overheard Hitler heatedly shouting into a chancellery telephone: “We have no business to be destroying Britain. We are quite incapable of taking up her legacy… [there will be] devastating consequences [if the empire collapses].”
*) David Irving: A general, present with Rundstedt and other generals at a June 2, 1940 meeting where Hitler spoke, wrote down the following comment about the meeting: “He points out that without a navy the equal of Britain’s we could not hold on to her colonies for long. Thus we can easily find a basis for peace agreement with Britain. France on the other hand must be stamped into the ground; she must pay the bill.”
*) David Irving: On June 17, Jodl’s principal assistant confirmed to the naval staff that “the Führer has anything but the intention of completely destroying the British Empire, as England’s downfall would be to the detriment of the White race. Hence the possibility of making peace with Britain after France’s defeat and at the latter’s expense, on condition that our colonies are returned and Britain renounces her influence in Europe. With regard to an invasion . . . the Führer has not so far uttered any such intention, as he is fully aware of the extreme difficulties inherent in such an operation. That is also why the High Command has as yet undertaken no studies or preparations. (The Commander in Chief, Luftwaffe, has put certain things in hand, e.g., the activation of a parachute division.)”
*) David Irving: Goebbels on April 21 : “The Führer’s intention ‘is to administer one knockout punch. Even so, he would be ready to make peace today, on condition that Britain stay out of Europe and give us back our colonies. He does not want at all to crush Britain or to destroy her empire.'”
*) David Irving: Hitler in late early May 1940: “‘They [the British] could have had peace on the most agreeable of terms. Instead they are fighting a war and shattering their empire to the core.’ And he added some days after that, on May 7: ‘We are neither able nor willing to take over their empire. There are some people whom you can talk sense into only after you’ve knocked out their front teeth.'”
*) 1948, Sir Basil Liddell Hart, ‘The German Generals Talk’, pp. 134-135: “But certain members of Rundstedt’s staff regarded the excuses as thin, and believed that Hitler had a deeper motive for his halt order [at Dunkirk]. They connected it with the surprising way he had talked when visiting their headquarters at Charleville on May 24yh, the day after the armoured forces had been halted in their stride. Hitler was accompanied by only one of his staff, and talked in private to Rundstedt and the two key men of his staff-Sodenstern and Blumentritt. Here is what the latter told me–“Hitler was in a very good humor, he admitted that the course of the campaign had been ‘a decided miracle,’ and gave us his opinion that the war would be finished in six weeks. After that he wished to conclude a reasonable peace with France, and then the way would be free for an agreement with Britain. He then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and of the civilization that Britain had brought into the world. He remarked, with a shrug of the shoulders, that the creation of its Empire had been achieved by means that were often harsh, but where there is planning, there are shavings flying. He compared the British Empire with the Catholic Church saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany’s position on the Continent. The return of Germany’s colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in difficulties anywhere. He remarked that the colonies were primarily a matter of prestige, since they could not be held in war, and few Germans could settle in the tropics. He concluded by saying that his aim was to make peace with Britain on a basis that she would regard as compatible with her honor to accept. Field-Marshal von Rundstedt, who was always for agreement with France and Britain, expressed his satisfaction, and later, after Hitler’s departure, remarked with a sigh of relief-‘Well if he wants nothing else, then we shall have peace at last.'” When Hitler continued to keep on the break, Blumentritt’s thoughts ran back to this conversation. He felt that the “halt” had been called for more than military reasons, and that it was part of a political scheme to make peace easier to reach. If the British Army had been captured at Dunkirk, the British people might have felt that their honour had suffered a stain which they must wipe out. By letting it escape Hitler hoped to conciliate them. This conviction of Hitler’s deeper motive was confirmed by his strangely dilatory attitude over the subsequent plans for the invasion of England. “He showed little interest in the plans,” Blumentritt said, “and made no effort to speed up the preparations. That was utterly different to his usual behaviour.” Before the invasion of Poland, of france, and later of Russia, he repeatedly spurred them on. But on this occasion he sat back.”
*) Von Rundstedt, according to Wikipedia: “von Rundstedt and others subsequently argued that the [Dunkirk] decision was Hitler’s and stemmed from his belief that Britain would more readily accept a peace treaty if he magnanimously spared what remained of her expeditionary force.”
*) Luftwaffe Gen. Hans Jeschonnek quoted on May 26, 1940 in John Lukacs, Five Days in London, May 1940 (New Haven, 1999), p. 41: “The Army is England’s backbone . . . If we destroy it, there goes the British Empire. We would not, could not inherit it . . . My generals did not understand this.” P. 42 (Hitler): “Churchill was quite unable to appreciate the sporting spirit of which I have given proof by refraining from creating an irreparable breach between the British and ourselves. We did, however, refrain from annihilating them at Dunkirk.”
*) Leon Degrelle, of the Belgian Waffen-SS, who Hitler greatly admired, and occasionally confided in. During one discussion with his Fuhrer, Degrelle stated: “We talked about England. I asked him bluntly: “Why on earth didn’t you finish the British off at Dunkirk? Everyone knew you could have wiped them out.” He answered: “Yes, I withheld my troops and let the British escape back to England. The humiliation of such a defeat would have made it difficult to try for peace with them afterwards.”
Degrelle founded of the pro-Nazi Belgian Rexism movement. He was a business partner of Otto Skorzeny and his daughter married Servando Balaguer, who was for some time the head of Blas Pinar’s Fuerza Nueva.
*) 1966, Carroll Quigley, ‘Tragedy & Hope’, p. 688: “By Hitler’s direct order, no intensive ground attack was made on the Allied forces within the Dunkerque perimeter, as Hitler was convinced that Britain would make peace as soon as France was defeated, and wished to save his dwindling armoured forces and munitions for the attack on the rest of France.”
*) Ribbentrop’s adviser on France, Otto Abenz, remarked caustically of the Dunkirk decision, “If Hitler had not been consumed by a diseased Anglophilia, everything would be different and easier.”
*) 19 July 1940, Adolf Hitler to the Reichstag, ‘A Last Appeal to Reason’: “The leaflet emphasised Hitler’s regret that, in spite of all his determined and honest efforts, he had not succeeded in achieving the friendship with England which he believed would have been a blessing for both people… “In this hour I feel it to be my duty before my own conscience to appeal once more to reason and common sense, in Great Britain as much as elsewhere. I consider myself in a position to make this appeal since I am not the vanquished begging favours, but the victor speaking in the name of reason. I can see no reason why this war must go on.” (leaflets of this speech were dropped in Britain by German bombers returning from raids).
*) Hitler also write in his Final Testimony: “I never wished a war against Britain or America.”
*) Hitler, after refusing Mussolini’s demand for the French fleet, turned to the real subject on his mind — England. In a discussion witnessed by Hitler’s official interpreter, Paul Schmidt, Hitler told Mussolini, he was convinced it would not serve any useful purpose to destroy the British Empire. “It is, after all, a force for order in the world.” insisted Hitler.
 September 24, 1929, The Times, ‘Anglo-German Relations’: “… to announce the formation of an Anglo-German Association. It has been felt for some time that there was a need for an Anglo-German organization comparable in its composition and aims to the Pilgrims or to the Anglo-French Association.”
 April 10, 1933, The Times, ‘Germans and the Jews – Lord Reading’s protest’
 September 24, 1929, The Times, ‘Anglo-German Relations’: “The president of the British branch is Lord Reading and of the German branch Herr Cuno, a former Chancellor, and now chairman of the Hamburg-Amerika Line.”
 the shipping line which throughout the 1930s worked in cooperation with the Harriman and Walker-Bush families in bringing Nazi propaganda and German agents to the United States. 
 September 24, 1929, The Times, ‘Anglo-German Relations’: “I understand that the vice presidents of the British branch include Lord D’Abernon, Mr. Philip Snowden, Sir Robert Horne, General Sir Ian Hamilton, and H. A. L. Fisher.”
 1966, Carroll Quigley, ‘Tragedy and Hope’ pp. 581-583.
 November 13, 1934, The Times, ‘Imperial Policy – New Group’s plea for strong programme’: “The chairman of the executive committee is Mr. W. Nunn, M.P., and the chief organizers are Lord Scone, M.P., Mr. A. R. Wise, M.P., Mr. Kenneth de Courcy, and Mr. Victor Raikes, M.P.”
 December 24, 1934, The Times, ‘Imperial Policy Group’ (letter of IPG board members to The Times)
 2000, R. A. C. Parker, ‘Churchill and Appeasement – Could Churchill have prevented the Second World War?’, p. 251: “One of the backbenchers on whom Chamberlain relied … [Victor] Raikes was one of the most articulate of twentieth-century party men. He it was who told the House after Munich that Chamberlain ‘will go down in history as the greatest European statesman of this or any other time'” http://clublet.com/why?NevilleChamberlain
 February 18, 1942, The Times, ‘High Court of Justice – King’s Bench Division – Mr. Kenneth de Courcy’s libel action settled’: “Mr. Kenneth de Courcy, secretary of the Imperial Policy Group… the Imperial Policy Group was a body of members of both Houses of Parliament who had associated for the purpose of disseminating information and propaganating opinions in support of the interest of Great Britain and the Empire. From time to time they published reviews on world affairs, and Mr. de Courcy was the author of those reviews.”
 Issue 41 – 2001, Scott Newton for Lobster Magazine, ‘De Courcy, Pilcher and Hess’: “I met de Courcy on three occasions while researching my book on appeasement… Before the war de Courcy did possess genuinely high level contacts in the British establishment. His papers, now kept at the Hoover Institution for War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University, show that he really did go on unofficial diplomatic missions in the late 1930s, and that his reports went to Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and to Stewart Menzies, Deputy to the Chief of SIS, Hugh Sinclair (until the latter’s death in November 1939 when Menzies took over)… De Courcy, it is clear, knew Menzies. He told me that the IPG itself was an ‘MI6 front’… The evidence in fact does not prove but tends to support the theory that de Courcy and Pilcher were part of a covert MI6 effort to promote a pro-Imperial and anti-Bolshevik outlook in the British establishment.”
 February 24 – March 2, 1999, The Weekly Telegraph, No. 396, ‘Obituary: Kenneth de Courcy’: “In 1934 de Courcy became secretary of the Imperial Policy Group, which favoured appeasement as the best means of preserving the Empire. In this capacity he travelled the Continent in the years before Munich, being received by Mussolini and Eduard Benes, president of Czechoslovakia. Neville Chamberlain regularly asked for de Courcy’s reports of these interviews, much to the annoyance of the Foreign Office.”
 Ibid.: “In the 1930’s de Courcy was a confidant of Cabinet ministers and a dining companion of the Duke of Windsor.”
 February 18, 1942, The Times, ‘High Court of Justice – King’s Bench Division – Mr. Kenneth de Courcy’s libel action settled’
 British Israel World Federation, Our Beliefs: “The Federation believes that Christ is our personal Saviour and Redeemer of the nation. We also believe that the descendants of the so-called “Lost Ten Tribes” of the Northern House of Israel are to be found in the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic and kindred peoples of today. As the Federation believes in the whole Bible it therefore believes the Covenants made between God and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob-Israel are everlasting and that the British nation plays an important part of God’s great plan for world order. ”
 August 22, 1997, Scott Thompson for Executive Intelligence Review, ‘Hugh de Courcy vs. LaRouche: The British Israelites’: “Kenneth Hugh de Courcy, the leading geopolitician of the Low Churches’ British Israel World Federation, was chosen by the British Establishment to be an intermediary in the 1989 railroad of Lyndon LaRouche, Jr. and six other defendants in an Alexandria, Virginia Federal Courtroom. LaRouche described the “deal” offered by de Courcy in his allocution to the Court, after the railroad guilty verdict had come in: “I wish to deal briefly with a matter which bears directly on the business before us. During the middle of the preceding trial [that resulted in a mistrial in Boston, Massachusetts because of Government turpitude], I received a communication from a senior, well-known member of, high level to the British intelligence establishment. This gentleman is known as Kenneth de Courcy… He communicated to me that he had been in contact with people who claimed to be responsible in the Anglo-American liberal establishment for bringing of the prosecution and this trial. He also represented to me that he believed that persons with whom he had been discussing were interested in presenting to me political conditions to which if I would submit, they didn’t specify the conditions, but if I would submit to them, they would use their influence to shape the outcoming of this proceeding trial and sentence. I responded to this by stating to them and to Mr. de Courcy that I was perfectly willing to discuss any political matter on its merits, but I was not going to engage in bargaining for influence on the outcome of the trial in the United States…. Mr. de Courcy subsequently informed me through intermediaries that my refusal to accept the offer, at very high levels of the British establishment, had meant that I was consigned in effect to hell…””
 The Times newspaper reports from the 1930s list Tennant as a prominent visitor of the Anglo-German Fellowship and a close associate of Ribbentrop. These articles do not identify Tennant as a founder of the Anglo-German Fellowship, but a number of internet sources do. Among them is the following Jstor source:
1970, James Douglas-Hamilton, ‘Ribbentrop and War’ (Jstor pdf): “During the late summer of 1939 the general manager of a bank sent to the Chief Intelligence Officer of RAF Fighter Command a document written be an acquaintance of his who had been a founding member of the Anglo-German Fellowship. The person who had written the document was a London merchant banker with business connections in Germany and his name was Ernest Tennant. The memorandum which he wrote was marked PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL and was dated 31 July 1939. It recorded in detail what Ribbentrop, the Nazi Foreign Minister, had said to Tennant during many hours of conversation on 26 July at Ribbentrop’s castle on the Lake of Fuschl, near Salzburg in Austria, and on 27 July in the train carrying Ribbentrop to Berlin.”
 Names taken from visitor lists that appeared in:
*) July 15, 1936, The Times, ‘Dinners – Anglo-German Fellowship’
*) December 16, 1936, The Times, ‘Germany’s need of colonies – Vital to Standard of Life – Herr von Ribbentrop on Bolshevism’
*) December 3, 1937, The Times, ‘Friendship with Germany – Lord Halifax’s visit – Herr Ribbentrop on new contacts’
*) May 19, 1938, The Times, ‘Receptions – Anglo-German Fellowship’
*) March 6, 1939, The Times, ‘Britain and Germany – Appeal for mutual understanding – Ambassador’s speech’
 July 9, 1945, Drew Pearson, Tucson Daily Citizen, ‘Bureaus Battle Over Documents – Nazi records subject to dispute over jurisdiction’: “Top-notch I. G. Farben officials are also considered important for establishing war guilt and ascertaining war secrets. They have been kept in prison ever since the armistice, though several seemed confident that high U.S. and British businessmen would get them out. The name they most frequently mention as the friend who would rescue them is Lord McGowan, head of British Imperial Chemical, Ltd. Some also mentioned Lammot Du Pont. Both Du Pont and Imperial Chemical had agreements with I. G. Farben before the war. Thomas H. McKittrick, head of the Bank of International Settlements, was also one who the I. G. Farben officials thought would help them; together with Leon Fraser, formerly with the Bank of International Settlements, who committed suicide last winter. I. G Farben officials, incidentally, did not know that he was dead.”
 December 3, 1937, The Times, ‘Friendship with Germany – Lord Halifax’s visit – Herr Ribbentrop on new contacts’
 1970, James Douglas-Hamilton, ‘Ribbentrop and War’ (Jstor pdf) (text of Tennant’s memorandum. ‘PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL’, July 31st. 1939).
 Full name Sir Ernest Tennant = Sir Ernest William Dalrymple Tennant (d. 1962). Full name Sir Peter Tennant = Sir Peter Frank Dalrymple Tennant (1910-1996). According to The Times of August 17, 1967, Peter Tennant was among a whole list of family members present at Sir Ernest Tennant’s memorial.
 December 3, 1937, The Times, ‘Friendship with Germany – Lord Halifax’s visit – Herr Ribbentrop on new contacts’
 January 9, 2000, The Independent on Sunday, ‘Secrets of the Red Book: The Who’s Who of British Nazis; Exposed: the establishment figures who wanted to turn the UK into a fascist dictatorship’
 December 15, 1998, Daily Mail, ‘Revealed: the Scots MP devoted to Hitler; The discovery of a little red book exposes fascist members of the upper classes’
 January 9, 2000, The Independent on Sunday, ‘Secrets of the Red Book: The Who’s Who of British Nazis; Exposed: the establishment figures who wanted to turn the UK into a fascist dictatorship’: “Running my finger down the list, written with a fountain pen in Ramsay’s hand, the names still resonate: Arthur Wellesley the 5th Duke of Wellington, the Second Baron Redesdale, the Earl of Galloway, Lord Ronald Graham, Princess Blucher, Sir Ernest Bennett, Prince Turka Galitzine and Britain’s most notorious Second World War traitor, William Joyce, later known as Lord Haw-Haw as he broadcast propaganda from Germany.”
 October 12, 2004, Daily Telegraph, ‘Nobles and admirals on war `Suspect List’. File names 400 people with supposed pro-German views to be arrested on an invasion, reports Ben Fenton’: “Domville and Maj Gen John Fuller, a close friend of Lord Rothermere, owner of the Daily Mail, were both linked to the Duke of Bedford through membership of Capt Archibald Ramsay MP’s Right Club.”
 Ibid.: “Domville, who was the founder of the fascist organisation The Link, was to be picked up from his home in Hampshire at the first sign of invasion. Part of the MI5 report on him says he had told the inmates of a home for ex-servicemen that Hitler “would soon be in this country, but that there was no reason to worry about it, because he would bring the Duke of Windsor over as King and conditions generally would be much improved”.”
 See note 97.
 All names taken from the newspaper articles mentioned in notes 95, 96, and 97.
 October 12, 2004, Daily Telegraph, ‘Nobles and admirals on war `Suspect List’. File names 400 people with supposed pro-German views to be arrested on an invasion, reports Ben Fenton’: “At least five people on the list are named in MI5 reports as associates of Anna Wolkoff, a dress designer and leading figure in British fascism who was a close friend of the Duchess of Windsor. The Duke, who had abdicated in 1936 to marry the then Wallis Simpson, had been causing embarrassment to the British government in the immediate pre-war years by cultivating contacts with Hitler and his regime. In a number of cases the Suspect List quotes leading British fascists as expressing the hope that a victorious Nazi invasion would place the Duke back on the throne.”
 Three Times newspaper articles have discussed this affair. This is where this information has been taken from.
*) October 18, 1968, The Times, ‘The Mosley Memoirs-5 – Mussolini, Hitler, and wartime imprisonment’
*) December 4, 1982, The Times, ‘Revealed: The strange story of Tyler Kent, MI5 and the Right Club – The American tearoom spy’
*) December 10, 1983, The Times, ‘Moscow’s moles and the ‘nazi spy”
 See note 37.
 1981, Professor Carroll Quigley, ‘The Anglo-American Establishment – From Rhodes to Cliveden’, p. 272.
 February 13, 1939, The Times, ‘Too much defeatism – Capt. Balfour on British Air Strength’
 1973, Jules Archer, ‘The plot to seize the White House – The shocking true story of the conspiracy to overthrow FDR’, p. 20.
 1966, Carroll Quigley, ‘Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time’, p. 642: “Thus, from March [1939; after Hitler’s full annexation of Czechoslovakia] onward, it became almost impossible to sell appeasement to the public, especially to the British public, who were sufficiently sturdy and sensible to know when they had had enough. But the British public and the British government were two different things… To the government the seizure of Czechoslovakia in March was of little significance except for the shock it gave to British opinion. The government had already written of the rump of Czechoslovakia completely… Nevertheless, concessions to Germany continued. But now parallel with concessions went a real effort to build up a strong front against Hitler for the day when concessions would break down. Moreover, concessions were different after March 17th because now they had to be secret. They had to be secret because public opinion refused any longer to accept any actions resembling appeasement… The projects of the anti-Bolsheviks [have Germany destroy the Soviet Union and cripple France] and the “three-bloc-world” supporters [allow a strong pan-German nation to be build in Europe, but preferably avoid war with the Soviet Union] were to dangerous to admit publicly…”
 1957, Walter Goerlitz, ‘History of the German General Staff – 1647 – 1945 ‘, p. 376: “After the BEF had escaped, Hitler also remarked to von Kleist that, “he had no intention of sending his tanks into ‘the mud of Flanders. The English won’t show up again in this war, anyway.'” Taken from:
 May 17, 2005, BBC, ‘WW2 – People’s War – A Last Appeal to Reason by Adolf Hitler’ (about: 19 July 1940, Adolf Hitler to the Reichstag, ‘A Last Appeal to Reason’)”A couple of months after the bus incident I was visiting Ramsey, a small village about four miles from Harwich, and found a German leaflet in the Hedgerow, which in all probability had been dropped by a bomber returning from an air raid on London. The leaflet, is double A3 size and has close type on all four sides. It is an excellent piece of crafted propaganda and quite likely had the hand of Josef Goebbels in its preparation and the making of the German case. There were no lies, but the manipulation of the facts stood truth on its head. The heading and brief note on some of the more salient points are: A LAST APPEAL TO REASON BY ADOLF HITLER SPEECH BEFORE THE RICHSTAG, 19 JULY 1940 The speech must have taken at least 2 hours to deliver, starting with the loss sustained after the 1914-118 War and that the conditions imposed on Germany at Versailles were considered to be intolerable and humiliating discriminate, thus depriving the German Nation of all its rights and empire. The Reich’s relations with the rest of the world was simply an attempt to bring about a definite revision of the Treaty of Versailles, through as far as at all possible, this was to be accomplished by peaceful means. The leaflet claims that all attempts made by democratic Germany to obtain equality for the German people by revision of the Treaty proved unavailing… “In this hour I feel it to be my duty before my own conscience to appeal once more to reason and common sense, in Great Britain as much as elsewhere. I consider myself in a position to make this appeal since I am not the vanquished begging favours, but the victor speaking in the name of reason. I can see no reason why this war must go on.””
 2000, Ian Kershaw, ‘Hitler 1936-1945, Nemesis’, pp. 369-381. Kershaw describes in detail Hess’s secret preparations before flying to Scotland and Hitler’s unpreparedness and absolute outrage when he heard what Hess had done.
 1962, Sefton Delmer (reporter/editor who worked for Lord Beaverbrook), ‘Black Boomerang’ (online edition): “Dressed, as ever, in his sober blue serge suit he walked into Hess’s sick room, flung his soft black hat on a table and advanced towards Hess with the outstretched hand and wide cheery smile of an old friend. It was the very opposite to the frozen formality of Lord Simon… Hess now stated that the object of his flight to Scotland had been to make peace with Britain “on any terms”, providing that Britain would then join Germany in attacking Russia. It was an odd statement for him to make in view of the fact that he had not mentioned the coming attack on Russia with so much as a word when he had his talk with Lord Simon. And to Kirkpatrick he had denied point blank that Hitler meant to attack Russia. Nor had the terms he put down in writing at the time of his talk with Lord Simon suggested Germany’s readiness for peace with Britain “at any price”… Hess’s main theme was that the British were wrong if they hoped that the conflict with the Soviet Union would so weaken both Russia and Germany that at the end of it Britain’s 19th-century hegemony over Europe would be restored… ‘world domination awaits the Soviet Union in the future, if her power is not broken now’, Hess said.”
 Iblibio (“the Public’s Library and Digital Archive”), Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons Official Report, Jan. 27, 1942
 1983, Charles Higham, ‘Trading with the Enemy’, p. 6: “Chamberlain was a major shareholder in Imperial Chemical Industries , partner of I.G. Farben whose Hermann Schmitz was on the board of the BIS.”
 1966, Carroll Quigley, ‘Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time’, pp. 654-655, 679-680: “The first British suggestion was that the Soviet Union should give unilateral guarantees to Poland and Romania similar to those given by Britain. The Russians probably regarded this as a trap to get them into a war with Germany in which Britain would do little or nothing or even give aid to Germany. That this last possibility was not completely beyond reality is clear from the fact that Britain did prepare an expeditionary force to attack Russia in March 1940, when Britain was technically at war with Germany but was doing nothing to fight her… France and Russia were both pushing Britain to form a Triple Alliance, but Britain was reluctant. Churchill and Lloyd George were pushing in the same direction, but Chamberlain fought back on the floor of the House… The Soviet attack of Finland [in November 1939] provided the leaders in the Entente countries with a heaven-sent opportunity to change the declared but unfought war with Germany, which t