The operational history of The Order can only be understood within a framework of the Hegelian dialectic process. Quite simply this is the notion that conflict creates history.

From this axiom it follows that controlled conflict can create a predetermined history. For example: When the Trilateral Commission discusses "managed conflict", as it does extensively in its literature, the Commission implies the managed use of conflict for long run predetermined ends - not for the mere random exercise of manipulative control to solve a problem.

The dialectic takes this Trilateral "managed conflict" process one step further. In Hegelian terms, an existing force (the thesis) generates a counterforce (the antithesis). Conflict between the two forces results in the forming of a synthesis. Then the process starts all over again: Thesis is antithesis results in synthesis.

The synthesis sought by the Establishment is called the New World Order. Without controlled conflict this New World Order will not come about. Random individual actions of persons in society would not lead to this synthesis, it's artificial, therefore it has to be created. And this is being done with the calculated, managed, use of conflict. And all the while this synthesis is being sought, there is no profit in playing the involved parties against one another.


This explains why the International bankers backed the Nazis, the Soviet Union, North Korea, North Vietnam, ad nauseum, against the United States. The "conflict" built profits while pushing the world ever closer to One World Government. The process continues today.

We apologize for the poor quality of some documents included in this volume. These are the best copies in existence today. In fact, it is a miracle they survived at all ... For example, letters between Patriarch Amos Pinchot (Club D. 95) and Patriarch William Kent (Club D. 85) Would almost certainly have been destroyed if a New York State Commission had not seized the documents as part of an investigation into subversion in the United States.

However, even where contents cannot be clearly identified, the very existence of even a fragmentary text proves a vital point: There is a joint calculated effort among Patriarchs to bring about a specific objective. Furthermore, the diverse conflicting nature of these efforts, commented upon even in letters between Patriarchs, can only be explained in the terms of the Hegelian dialectic.

In brief, the existence of these documents is just as important as the nature of the contents. It demonstrates joint planned actions, ergo: A Conspiracy!


Antony C. Sutton
April, 1984

Return to Contents



Memorandum Number One:
Created Conflict And The Dialectic Process



The first volume of this series Introduction To The Order described in broad terms the nature and objectives of The Order.

Our first hypothesis, that the U.S. was ruled by an elite, secret society . was supported by documentary evidence: such a secret society does exist, its membership is concealed, and disclosure of membership is not a voluntary effort. Further, since publication of the first volume, the Sterling Library at Yale University which has major holdings of their records has refused to allow researchers further access to Russell Trust papers (the legal name for The Order).

We also argued in the first volume that the operations of The Order must be seen and explained in terms of the Hegelian dialectic process. Their operations cannot be explained in terms of any other philosophy; therefore The Order cannot be described as "right" or "left," secular or religious, Marxist or Capitalist. The Order, and its objectives, is all of these and none of these.

In Hegelian philosophy the conflict of political "right" and political "left," or thesis and antithesis in Hegelian terms, is essential to the forward movement of history and historical change itself. Conflict between thesis and antithesis brings about a synthesis, i.e., a new historical situation.

Our descriptive world history in the West and Marxist countries consists only of description and analysis within a political framework of "right" or "left." For example, historical work published in the West looks at communism and socialism either through the eyes of financial capitalism or Marxism. Historical work published in the Soviet Union looks at the West only through Marxist eyes.


However, there is another frame for historical analysis that has never (so far as we can determine) been utilized, i.e., to use a framework of Hegelian logic, to determine if those elites who control the State use the dialectic process to create a predetermined historical synthesis.

Only tantalizing glimpses of any such creative process can be found in modern historical works. The most convincing glimpses are in the late Carroll Quigley's Tragedy And Hope which we shall quote below. Rarely some politicians on the periphery of elitist power have allowed brief insights into the public eye.


For example, President Woodrow Wilson made the revealing statement:

"Some of the biggest men in the U.S. in the fields of commerce and manufacturing know that there is a power so organized, so subtle, so complete, so pervasive that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."

Who or what is this power? And how is it used?

This series argues that the current world situation has been deliberately created by this elitist power more or less by manipulation of "right" and "left" elements. We argue that the most powerful of all world elites has during the past 100 years or so developed both right and left elements to bring about a New World Order.

There is no question that the so-called establishment in the U.S. uses "managed conflict." The practice of "managing" crises to bring about a favorable outcome, that is, favorable to the elite, is freely admitted in the literature of, for example, The Trilateral Commission.


Furthermore, there is no question that decisions of war and peace are made by a few in the elite and not by the many in the voting process through a political referendum. This volume explores some major conflict decisions made by the few in The Order and the way in which right-left situations have been deliberately created and then placed in a conflict mode to bring about a synthesis.

Finally, we will tie these decisions and operations back to the elite and specifically to The Order.


Throughout the last 200 years, since the rise of Kant in German philosophy, we can identify two conflicting systems of philosophy and so opposing ideas of the State, society and culture. In the U.S., the British Commonwealth and France, philosophy is based on the individual and the rights of the individual.


Whereas in Germany from the time of Kant, through Fichte and Hegel up to 1945, the root philosophy has been universal brotherhood, rejection of individualism and general opposition to Western classical liberal thought in almost all its aspects. German idealism, as we noted in earlier volumes of this series, was the philosophical basis for the work of Karl Marx and the Left Hegelians as well as Bismarck, Hitler and the Right Hegelians.


This is the paradox: that Hegel gave a theoretical basis not only to the most conservative of German movements, but also to most of the revolutionary movements of the 19th century. Both Marx and Hitler have their philosophical roots in Hegel.

From the Hegelian system of political thought, alien to most of us in the West, stem such absurdities as the State seen as the "march of God through history," that the State is also God, that the only duty of a citizen is to serve God by serving the State, that the State is Absolute Reason, that a citizen can only find freedom by worship and utter obedience to the State. However, we also noted in How The Order Controls Education that Hegelian absurdities have thoroughly penetrated the U.S. educational system under pressure from such organizations as the National Education Association and major foundations.

From this system of Hegelian philosophy comes the historical dialectic, i.e., that all historical events emerge from a conflict between opposing forces. These emerging events are above and different from the conflicting events. Any idea or implementation of an idea may be seen as THESIS. This thesis will encourage emergence of opposing forces, known as ANTITHESIS. The final outcome will be neither thesis nor antithesis, but a synthesis of the two forces in conflict.

Karl Marx, in Das Kapital, posed capitalism as thesis and communism as antithesis. What has been completely ignored by historians, including Marxists, is that any clash between these forces cannot lead to a society which is either capitalist or communist but must lead to a society characterized by a synthesis of the two conflicting forces.


The clash of opposites must in the Hegelian system bring about a society neither capitalist nor communist. Moreover, in the Hegelian scheme of events, this new synthesis will reflect the concept of the State as God and the individual as totally subordinate to an all powerful State.


What then is the function of a Parliament or a Congress for Hegelians?


These institutions are merely to allow individuals to feel that opinions have some value and to allow a government to take advantage of whatever wisdom the "peasant" may accidentally demonstrate. As Hegel puts it:

"By virtue of this participation, subjective liberty and conceit, with their general opinion, (individuals) can show themselves palpably efficacious and enjoy the satisfaction of feeling themselves to count for something."

War, the organized conflict of nations for Hegelians, is only the visible outcome of the clash between ideas. As John Dewey, the Hegelian darling of the modern educational system, puts it:

"War is the most effective preacher of the vanity of all merely finite interests, it puts an end to that selfish egoism of the individual by which he would claim his life and his property as his own or as his family's."

(John Dewey, German Philosophy And Politics, p. 197)

Of course, this war-promoting Dewey paragraph is conveniently forgotten by the National Education Association, which is today busy in the "Peace Movement" - at precisely that time when a "peace" movement most aids the Hegelian Soviets.

Above all, the Hegelian doctrine is the divine right of States rather than the divine right of kings. The State for Hegel and Hegelians is God on earth:

"The march of God in history is the cause of the existence of states, their foundation is the power of Reason realizing itself as will. Every state, whatever it be, participates in the divine essence. The State is not the work of human art, only Reason could produce it."

(Philosophy Of Right)

For Hegel the individual is nothing, the individual has no rights, morality consists solely in following a leader. For the ambitious individual the rule is Senator Mansfield's maxim: "To get along you have to go along."

Compare this to the spirit and letter of the Constitution of the United States: "We the people" grant the state some powers and reserve all others to the people. Separation of church and state is built into the U.S. Constitution, a denial of Hegel's "the State is God on earth."


Yet, compare this legal requirement to the actions of The Order in the United States, The Group in England, the Illuminati in Germany, and the Politburo in Russia. For these elitists the State is supreme and a self-appointed elite running the State acts indeed as God on earth.


The concept of the Hegelian dialectic is obviously beyond the comprehension of modern textbook writers. No historical or political theory textbook that we know of discusses the possible use of the Hegelian dialectic in American politics. Yet its use has been recorded by Professor Carroll Quigley in Tragedy And Hope, a trade book based on documents of the Council on Foreign Relations.


Quigley not only describes banker J.P. Morgan's use of the "right" and the "left" as competitive devices for political manipulation of society, but adds an eye-opening comment:

"Unfortunately we do not have space here for this great and untold story, but it must be remembered that what we do say is part of a much larger picture."

(Tragedy And Hope, p. 945)

This much larger picture is partly revealed in this book. First let's briefly note how J.P. Morgan used the dialectic process as a means of political control for financial ends. The only college attended by Morgan was 2-3 years in the mid-1850s at University of Gottingen, Germany, which was a center of Hegelian activism.


We have no record that Morgan joined any secret society, no more than the KONKNEIPANTEN, one of the student corps. Yet German Hegelianism is apparent in J.P. Morgan's approach to political parties - Morgan used them all.

As Quigley comments:

"The associations between Wall Street and the Left, of which Mike Straight is a fair example, are really survivals of the associations between the Morgan Bank and the Left. To Morgan all political parties were simply organizations to be used, and the firm always was careful to keep a foot in all camps.


Morgan himself, Dwight Morrow, and other partners were allied with Republicans; Russell C. Leffingwell was allied with the Democrats; Grayson Murphy was allied with the extreme Right; and Thomas W. Lamont was allied with the Left. Like the Morgan interest in libraries, museums, and art, its inability to distinguish between loyalty to the United States and loyalty to England, its recognition of the need for social work among the poor, the multi-partisan political views of the Morgan firm in domestic politics went back to the original founder of the firm, George Peabody (1795-1869).


To this same seminal figure may be attributed the use of tax-exempt foundations for controlling these activities, as may be observed in many parts of America to this day, in the use of Peabody foundations to support Peabody libraries and museums. Unfortunately, we do not have space here for this great and untold story, but it must be remembered that what we do say is part of a much larger picture." (Ibid)

Quigley did not know of the link between the Morgan firm, other New York financial interests and The Order. As we have noted before, Quigley did publish a valuable expose of the British Establishment known as "The Group." And we know from personal correspondence that Quigley suspected more than he published, but identification of an American elite was not part of Quigley's work.


The names Harriman, Bush, Acheson, Whitney - even Stimson - do not appear in The Anglo American Establishment.

We can therefore take the above paragraph from Quigley's Tragedy And Hope and insert identification of The Order. The paragraph then becomes more revealing. Although Morgan himself was not a member of The Order, some of his partners were, and after Morgan's death the firm became Morgan, Stanley & Co. The "Stanley" was Harold Stanley (The Order 1908).


In Morgan's time the influence of The Order came through partner Henry P. Davison, whose son H.P. Davison, Jr. was initiated in 1920. The elder Henry P. Davison brought Thomas Lamont and Willard Straight into the Morgan firm. These partners were instrumental in building the left wing of Morgan's dialectic, including the Communist Party U.S.A. (with Julius Hammer, whose son is today Chairman of Occidental Petroleum).

Morgan partner Thomas Cochran was initiated in 1904. However, it was in the network of Morgan dominated and affiliated firms, rather than in the partnership itself, that one finds members of The Order. In firms like Guaranty Trust and Bankers Trust, somewhat removed from the J.P. Morgan financial center, although under Morgan control, we find concentrations of initiates (as we shall describe below).


This practice by The Order of supporting both "right" and "left" persists down to the present day. We find in 1984, for example, that Averell Harriman (The Order '13) is elder statesman of the Democratic Party while George Bush (The Order '49) is a Republican Vice President and leader of the misnamed "moderate" (actually extremist) wing of the Republican Party. In the center we have so-called "independent" John Anderson, who in fact receives heavy financial support from the elite.


This manipulation of "left" and "right on the domestic front is duplicated in the international field where "left" and "right" political structures are artificially constructed and collapsed in the drive for a one-world synthesis.

College textbooks present war and revolution as more or less accidental results of conflicting forces. The decay of political negotiation into physical conflict comes about, according to these books, after valiant efforts to avoid war. Unfortunately, this is nonsense. War is always a deliberate creative act by individuals.

Western textbooks also have gigantic gaps.


For example, after World War II the Tribunals set up to investigate Nazi war criminals were careful to censor any materials recording Western assistance to Hitler. By the same token, Western textbooks on Soviet economic development omit any description of the economic and financial aid given to the 1917 Revolution and subsequent economic development by Western firms and banks.

Revolution is always recorded as a spontaneous event by the politically or economically deprived against an autocratic state. Never in Western textbooks will you find the evidence that revolutions need finance and the source of the finance in many cases traces back to Wall Street.

Consequently it can be argued that our Western history is every bit as distorted, censored, and largely useless as that of Hitler's Germany or the Soviet Union or Communist China. No Western foundation will award grants to investigate such topics, few Western academics can "survive" by researching such theses and certainly no major publisher will easily accept manuscripts reflecting such arguments.

In fact, there is another largely unrecorded history and it tells a story quite different than our sanitized textbooks. It tells a story of the deliberate creation of war, the knowing finance of revolution to change governments, and the use of conflict to create a New World Order.

In the following Memorandum Number Two we will describe the operational vehicles used to create two revolutions and one world conflict. Then, in Memoranda Three and Four, we will explore thesis and antithesis in one major historical episode - the development and construction of the Soviet Union (thesis) and Hitler's Germany (antithesis).

In Memorandum Five we will explore the continuation of this dialectic conflict into the last few decades, specifically Angola and China today. We will show that the purpose of The Order is to create a new synthesis, a New World Order along Hegelian lines where the State is the Absolute and the individual can find freedom only in blind obedience to the State.


Return to Contents


Memorandum Number Two:
Operational Vehicles For Conflict Creation



Our first task is to break an almost universally held mind set, i.e., that communists and elitist capitalists are bitter enemies. This Marxist axiom is a false statement and for a century has fooled academics and investigators alike.

To illustrate this mind set, let's look at a report on revolutionaries in the U.S. compiled by the respected Scotland Yard (London) in 1919. London police investigators were then tracking the Bolshevik Revolution and attempting to identify its Western supporters. When it came to men with long beards and even longer overcoats, most police departments had no problem - they looked like revolutionaries, therefore, they must be revolutionaries.


But when it came to respectable black-suited bankers, Scotland Yard was unable to rise above its mind set and recognize that bankers might equally be revolutionaries. Witness this extract from a Scotland Yard Intelligence Report. 1

"Martens is very much in the limelight. There appears to be no doubt about his connection with the Guarantee (sic) Trust Company. Although it is surprising that so large and influential an enterprise should have dealings with a Bolshevik concern."

1 A copy is in U.S. State Department Decimal File, Microcopy 316, Roll 22, Frame 656.


Scotland Yard had picked up an accurate report that the Soviets were deeply involved with Guaranty Trust of New York, but they couldn't believe it, and dropped this line of investigation.

Even today the FBI has a similar mind set. For example, David Rockefeller has met regularly with a KGB agent in the United States - weekly lunch meetings is a close description. Yet the FBI presumably can't bring itself to investigate David Rockefeller as a potential Soviet agent, but if Joe Smith of Hoboken, N.J. was lunching weekly with the KGB, you can be sure the FBI would be on his tail. And, of course, our domestic U.S. Marxists find it absolutely inconceivable that a capitalist would support communism.

Organizations like Scotland Yard and the FBI, and almost all academics on whom investigators rely for their guidelines, have a highly important failing: they look at known verifiable historical facts with a mind set. They convince themselves that they have the explanation of a problem even before the problem presents itself.

The key to modern history is in these facts: that elitists have close working relations with both Marxists and Nazis. The only questions are who and why? The common reaction is to reject these facts.

On the other hand, national security alone demands that we face these unwelcome relations before any more damage is done to our way of life.

In this memorandum we will present the concept that world history, certainly since about 1917, reflects deliberately created conflict with the objective of bringing about a synthesis, a New World Order.

The operation actually began before 1917. In later volumes we will explore the Spanish-American War and the Anglo-Boer War of 1899. The first was created by The Order, i.e., the U.S. elite, and the second by "The Group," i.e., the British elite (with some U.S. assistance).


We might aptly term these the First and Second Hegelian Wars, but this is another story. In this volume we are limited to the rise of Hitler in Germany and the rise of the Marxist state in the Soviet Union. The clash between these two powers or the political systems they represent was a major source of World War II.

After World War II the world stage was changed. After 1945 it became the Soviet Union on one side versus the United States on the other. The first dialectical clash led to the formation of the United Nations, an elementary step on the road to world government. The second dialectical clash led to the Trilateral Commission, i.e., regional groupings and more subtly to efforts for a merger of the United States and the Soviet Union.

In Introduction To The Order we-established the existence of a secret society, The Order. We are now going to demonstrate how The Order created and developed two global arms needed for Hegelian conflict.


Since 1917 the operational vehicles for this global battle have been:

(a) Guaranty Trust Company of New York, the same firm cited in the 1919 Scotland Yard report
(b) Brown Brothers, Harriman, private bankers of New York. Before 1933 Brown Brothers, Harriman consisted of two firms: W.A. Harriman Company and Brown Brothers. Numerous members of The Order have been in both firms, but one individual stands out above all others as the key to the operation of The Order: W. Averell Harriman (The Order ' 13)


1 Names of Brown Brothers, Harriman partners in 1972 were included in Introduction To The Order, pages 20-21. About 100 Harriman related documents from the 1920s may be found in U.S. State Department Decimal File, Microcopy 316, Roll 138 (861.6364-6461).

The name William Averell Harriman turns up behind world political scenes more frequently than any other member of The Order. Possibly as because Harriman is a remarkably active man. Born in 1891, graduated Yale 1913, Harriman is still newsworthy in the 1980s. In June 1983 Harriman had a private meeting with Yuri Andropov in Moscow and in December 1983, at 92, broke his right leg while swimming in the sea off Barbados. Whatever else we say here about Averell, we must record his truly remarkable energy and longevity.

In official Harriman biographies, however, there is no mention of The Order, Skull & Bones, or the Russell Trust. Like other initiates Harriman has carefully expunged membership from the public record. We have not yet determined if this membership was ever made known to the FBI for use in background checks needed for government positions, or maybe no one ever bothered to ask for a background check on Averell Harriman.

To understand Averell Harriman we need to go back to his father, Edward H. Harriman, the 19th century "robber baron." Edward Harriman's biography (E.H. Harriman: A Biography) is as self-serving as all hired biographies. It was written by George Kennan (published by Houghton Mifflin in 1922) who was active in the Dean Acheson State Department. The author of the famous - some say infamous - National Security Council document 68 was none other than George Kennan. (See page 175)

Edward Harriman started work at 14 with little education, but married Mary Averell, daughter of a New York banker and railroad president. At 22, Harriman bought a seat on the New York Stock Exchange and got lucky or smart with Union Pacific after the crash of 1893.

Even the widely accepted Dictionary of American Biography states that Harriman was subsequently guilty of a combination in restraint of trade (1904 Northern Securities case), that his dubious financial activities netted him $60 million in a manner which led to investigation by the Interstate Commerce Commission. This source cites Harriman as example of how a road may be drained of its resources for the benefit of insiders."

Harriman printed securities with a nominal value of $80 million to expand capitalization of his railroads. On the other hand, Harriman neglected to acquire improvements and property for more than $18 million. In other words, $60 million of the securities was water, mostly sold through Kuhn Loeb & Co., his backers and bankers. The $60 million went into Harriman's pocket.

The 1904 ICC report stated:

"It was admitted by Mr. Harriman that there was about $60 million of stock and liabilities issued, against which no property had been acquired and this is undoubtedly an accurate estimate."1

In brief, Mr. Edward H. Harriman was apparently a thief, a crook, and a felon, because fraudulent conversion of $60 million is a felony. Harriman stayed out of jail by judicious expenditures to politicians and political parties. Biographer George Kennan relates how Harriman responded to President Theodore Roosevelt's 1904 plea for $250,000 for the Republican National Committee.2

These funds were turned over to the Committee by Harriman's friend and attorney, Judge Robert Scott Lovett. Lovett was also general counsel for the Union Pacific Railroad and could be described as Harriman's bagman. Judge Lovett's son, Robert Abercrombie Lovett (The Order '18) went to Yale and with the two Harriman boys, Roland and Averell, was initiated into The Order.


We shall catch up again with Robert Abercrombie Lovett in the 1950s as Secretary of Defense, partner in Brown Brothers, Harriman, and a key force to have President Harry Truman recall General Douglas MacArthur from Korea. By itself the Lovett family is incidental. When we link it to the Harriman family we have an example of how these families help each other along the way for a common objective.

In any event, $250,000 hardly changed Theodore Roosevelt's view of Harriman. Two years after the gift, Roosevelt wrote Senator Sherman and described Harriman as a man of "deep seated corruption," an "undesirable citizen" and "an enemy of the Republic."3


1 Gustavus Myers. History Of The Great American Fortunes (Modern Library, New York, 1937) p 500.
2 George Kennan. op cit., p 192
3 Augustus Myers, op cit., p. 214.

Another description of Averell Harriman's father is in Concise Dictionary Of National Biography (page 402) :

"Self confident, dominant, cold and ruthless, he spared neither friend nor foe if they blocked his plans."

Now we cannot visit the sins of the father onto his sons, but we should keep this background in mind when we look at the careers of the Harriman boys, Averell and Roland. At least we have reasons to probe behind the public relations facade and perhaps suspect the worst.

Superficially, Averell Harriman's life has been quite different than his fathers. Here's an official summary of Averell Harriman's long career:

  • Married three times,

  1. 1915 Kitty Lanier Lawrence

  2. 1930 Marie Norton Whitney 4

  3. 1971 Pamela Churchill Hayward 5

4 For Marie Norton Whitney, see Volume One, p 29 The Order, p. 29.

5 Pamela Hayward was formerly married to Randolph Churchill, thus linking Harriman to the British establishment.

  • Groton Prep School, then Yale. Initiated into The Order in 1913

  • Started with his father's company, Union Pacific Railroad

  • 1917 organized the Merchant Shipbuilding Corporation, sold all shipping interests in 1925

  • 1917 Director of Guaranty Trust. Family holdings of about one-third of Guaranty stock were put into a J.P. Morgan voting trust in 1912

  • 1920 established W.A. Harriman Company, with his brother Roland as Vice-President

  • 1923 formed Georgian Manganese Company

  • 1933 W.A. Harriman merged with Brown Brothers to become Brown Brothers, Harriman

  • 1934 Special assistant administrator of Roosevelt's National Recovery Act

  • 1941 Minister to Great Britain in charge of Lend Lease for Britain and Russia

  • 1941Ambassador to the Soviet Union

  • 1946 Ambassador to Great Britain

  • 1946 Secretary of Commerce

  • 1948 U.S. representative to ECA in Europe

  • 1950 Special Assistant to President Truman

  • 1951 U.S. representative at NATO defense meetings

  • 1951 Director of Mutual Security Agency

  • 1955 Governor of State of New York

  • 1961 Ambassador at Large

  • 1961 Assistant Secretary of State for Far East

  • 1963 Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs

  • 1968 U.S. representative at Paris "peace" talks on Vietnam

  • 1974 Chairman Democratic Party Foreign Policy Task Force

  • 1975 Limited Partner Brown Brothers, Harriman

  • 1983 Visits Yuri Andropov in Moscow

With this lengthy global experience one might suspect that Harriman has developed a deep knowledge, understanding and perception of the world. But in fact his writings suggest he is either rather stupid or one of the most deceptive men ever to walk the face of our earth. Let's take one example: an article written by Averell Harriman, published in Look October 3, 1967 and entitled "From Stalin to Kosygin: the myths and the realities."

Here are two extracts:

(1) "Therefore in the early twenties my firm participated in credits to finance trade with Russia. We found as others did that the new government was most meticulous in meeting its financial commitments."

In fact, the Soviets expropriated the concessions of the 1920s including Harriman's, usually without reimbursement. Harriman was double-crossed by the Soviets in his Georgian manganese concession, then persuaded to take $3 million in Soviet bonds as compensation. (See documents printed on pages 154-155).


This Soviet "compensation" in effect put Harriman in a position of making the first U.S. loan to Russia, so breaching United States law against such loans.

But this is what Harriman told John B. Stetson, Jr. of the State Department (861.637-Harriman),

"Mr. Harriman said that they expect to drop about three million dollars which they would charge off to experience."

This, Harriman calls "most meticulous in meeting its financial obligations."

(2) "On the Russian side, one of the most troublesome myths is that America is run by a 'ruling circle,' made up of Wall Streeters and industrialists who have an interest in continuing the cold war and the arms race to prop up the 'capitalist' economy. Anybody who knows American politics knows what nonsense this is."

Unfortunately, the Russians are largely right on the political aspects of this one. In making the above statement Harriman not only confirms Russian paranoia, i.e., that capitalists can't be trusted to tell the truth, but also deceives the American reading audience in Look that they do, in fact, have a participation in running political affairs. Compare this paragraph to this series on The Order and you will see the devious way the Harriman mind works, perhaps not so different than Harriman senior.

The previously described official Harriman biography suggests that Harriman, given his decades on the political inside, must be well aware of the dependence of the Soviet Union on Western technology: that the Soviet Union can make no economic progress without Western enterprise technology. In fact, Stalin himself told Harriman as much back in 1944.


Here's an extract from a report by Ambassador Harriman in Moscow to the State Department, dated June 30, 1944:

"Stalin paid tribute to the assistance rendered by the United States to Soviet industry before and during the war. He said that about two-thirds of all the large industrial enterprises in the Soviet Union had been built with United States help or technical assistance." 1

1 Original in U.S. State Department Decimal File 033.1161 Johnston Eric/6-3044 Telegram June 30. 1944.


Stalin could have added that the other one-third of Soviet industry had been built by British, German, French, Italian, Finnish, Czech and Japanese companies.

In brief, Harriman knew first hand back in 1944 at least that the West had built the Soviet Union. Now examine Harriman's official biography with its string of appointments relating to. NATO, Mutual Security Agency, State Department, foreign policy, and so on. In these posts Harriman actively pushed for a military build-up of the United States. But if the Soviet Union was seen to be an enemy in 1947, then we had no need to build a massive defense.

What we should have done was cut off technology. There was no Soviet technology - and HARRIMAN KNEW THERE WAS NO SOVIET TECHNOLOGY.

Furthermore, Harriman has been in the forefront of the cry for "more trade" with the Soviet Union - and trade is the transfer vehicle for technology. In other words, Harriman has been pushing two CONFLICTING POLICIES SIMULTANEOUSLY.

(a) a build-up of Soviet power by export of our technology
(b) a Western defense against that power

Isn't this the Hegelian dialectic?


Thesis versus antithesis, then conflict which leads to a new synthesis. In the following memoranda we will show how Harriman and his fellows in the Brotherhood of Power went about this program of conflict creation.

Moreover, Harriman is understandably highly sensitive when challenged on his pious "I am always right about the Soviets" attitude. One memorable occasion was back in 1971 when author Edward (Teddy) Weintal was at a dinner party with Harriman when Harriman trotted out his well worn line:

"I was the first to warn of Soviet dangers….”

Weintal stopped him cold. In research for a book, Weintal had found documents incriminating Harriman in the National Archives (similar to those reproduced later in this book). In particular, Weintal cited a State Department telegram dated February 12, 1944 from Harriman to Roosevelt.


Said Weintal,

"You told Roosevelt that you were convinced that the Soviets did not want to introduce a Communist government into Poland."

So up jumped 79-year-old Harriman from the dinner table and waved his fists at 70-year-old Weintal. Shouted Harriman,

"If you print anything like that in your book, I'll break your jaw."

Reportedly, the agitated host separated the two men, but not before a Washington Post reporter noted the details (See Washington Post, March 17, 1971, VIP Column by Maxine Cheshire).



Guaranty Trust was founded 1864 in New York. Over the next 100 years the banking firm expanded rapidly by absorbing other banks and trust companies; in 1910 it merged Morton Trust Company, in 1912 the Standard Trust Company, and in 1929 the National Bank of Commerce.


The J.P. Morgan firm has effectively controlled Guaranty Trust since 1912 when Mrs. Edward Harriman (mother of Roland and Averell Harriman) sold her block of 8,000 shares of the total outstanding 20,000 shares to J.P. Morgan. By 1954 Guaranty Trust had become the most important banking subsidiary of the J.P. Morgan firm and since 1954 the merged firms have been known as Morgan-Guaranty Company.

The original capital for Guaranty Trust came from the Whitney, Rockefeller, Harriman and Vanderbilt families, all represented in The Order, and on the Board of Guaranty Trust by family members throughout the period we are discussing.

Harry Payne Whitney (The Order'94) inherited two Standard Oil fortunes from the Payne and the Whitney families. H.P. Whitney was a director of Guaranty Trust, as was his father, William C. Whitney (The Order '63). Alfred Gwynne Vanderbilt (The Order '99) represented the Vanderbilt family until he drowned at sea in the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915. (His sister Gertrude married Harry Payne Whitney, above).


The power of The Order is reflected in a bizarre incident as Alfred Gwynne Vanderbilt boarded the Lusitania in New York on its fateful voyage. A telegram warning Vanderbilt not to sail was delivered to the Lusitania before it sailed - but never reached Vanderbilt. Consequently, Vanderbilt went down with the ship.

The Harriman investment in Guaranty Trust has been represented by W. Averell Harriman.

The Rockefeller investment in Guaranty Trust was represented by Percy Rockefeller (The Order '00).

In brief, The Order was closely associated with Guaranty Trust and Morgan-Guaranty long before 1912 when Mrs. Edward Harriman sold her interest to J.P. Morgan. Averell Harriman remained on the Board of Guaranty Trust after the transfer. The following members of The Order have also been officers and directors of Guaranty Trust Company:

Harold Stanley (The Order 1908): Harold Stanley, born 1885, was the son of William Stanley, an inventor associated with General Electric Company. Stanley prepared for Yale University at the elitist Hotchkiss School, Lakeville, Connecticut. An excellent athlete, Stanley graduated Yale in 1908 and was initiated into The Order.

After Yale, Stanley joined National Bank of Albany and then, between 1913-1915, was with J.G. White (prominent in construction of the Soviet First Five Year Plan). In 1915 Stanley joined Guaranty Trust as Vice President. From 1921 to 1928 he was President of Guaranty Trust and then a partner in the firm of J.P. Morgan, replacing William Morrow. From 1935 to 1941 he was President of Morgan, Stanley & Company, then a partner from 1941 to 1955 and a limited partner after 1956, until his death in 1963.

In brief, a member of The Order was Vice President, then President of Guaranty Trust Company in the years 1915 to 1928 -the years which record the Bolshevik Revolution and the rise of Hitler to power in Germany.

Joseph R. Swan (The Order '02). The Guaranty Company was a subsidiary of Guaranty Trust Co. Joseph Rockwell Swan (The Order '02) was President of the Guaranty Company as well as a director of Guaranty Trust Company.

Percy Rockefeller (The Order '00). Percy Rockefeller, born 1878, was the son of William D. Rockefeller (brother of John D. Rockefeller) and inherited part of the Standard Oil fortune. Percy was a director of Guaranty Trust in the 1915-1930 period.

How The Order Relates To

Guaranty Trust Company And Brown Brothers, Harriman



The other operational vehicle used by The Order was the private banking firm of Brown Brothers, Harriman. Before 1933 W.A. Harriman Company was the vehicle, and Brown Brothers did not enter the picture. After 1933, the merged firm continued Harriman Company activities.

In Introduction To The Order we presented details of the merged firm (pp. 29-33). There is, however, one aspect we want to identify: the extraordinary role of the Yale Class of '17 in Brown Brothers, Harriman and the events to be described in Memoranda Three and Four.

The following five members in the class of '17 (only fifteen were initiated) were involved:

  1. Knight Woolley (The Order '17) was with Guaranty Trust from 1919-1920, Harriman Company from 1927-1931, then Brown Brothers, Harriman from 1933 to the present time. Woolley was also a director of the Federal Reserve Bank.

  2. Frank P. Shepard (The Order '17) also joined Guaranty Trust in 1919 and was a Vice President from 1920 to 1934, the period concerned with development of both Soviet Russia and Hitler's Nazi Party. From 1934 onwards Shepard was with Bankers Trust Company, a member of the Morgan group of banks.

  3. Ellery Sedgewick James (The Order '17) was a partner in Brown Brothers, Harriman.

    And finally, two interesting characters:

  4. Edward Roland Noel Harriman (The Order '17) and


  5. Sheldon Prescott Bush (The Order '17), the father of President George Herbert Walker Bush (The Order '49), and grandfather of President George Walker Bush (The Order '68).


From World War I until well into the 1930s The Order's "front man" in both Guaranty Trust and Brown Brothers, Harriman was Matthew C. Brush.

Brush was not Yale, nor a member of The Order, but through an accidental meeting in the 1890s his talents were used by The Order. Brush became a Knight Templar, a 32nd degree Mason and a Shriner, but not - so far as we can trace - more closely linked to the power center.

Brush was born in Stillwater, Minnesota in 1877 and was a graduate of the Armour Institute of Technology and MIT. By accident his first job in the 1890s was as a clerk with Franklin MacVeagh & Company of Chicago. Franklin MacVeagh was a member (The Order '62) and later Secretary of the Treasury (1909-1913) under President William Taft (The Order '78).

MacVeagh himself, as distinct from Brush, is a little difficult to classify. In 1913 MacVeagh left the Treasury and resigned as trustee of the University of Chicago. By 1919 he had become delinquent in his fees to Russell Trust. We have a copy of a dunning notice sent to MacVeagh by Otto Bannard (The Order '76), President of New York Life and Treasurer for The Order in 1919. The notice asked MacVeagh to pay up his dues.

While the trail of MacVeagh fades out after 1913, that of Matthew Brush, his one-time clerk, blossoms forth. After a series of posts in railroad companies, Brush was made Vice President of American International Corporation in 1918 and President in 1923. He was also Chairman of the Equitable Office Building, also known as 120 Broadway, illustrated on page 139.

Moreover, Brush was President of Barnsdall Corporation and Georgian Manganese Company; the significance of these posts will be seen in the next memorandum.

The purpose of this memorandum has been to demonstrate control of two banking houses by members of The Order. Both Guaranty Trust and Brown Brothers, Harriman can truly be said to have been dominated and substantially owned by individuals identified as members. Furthermore, both Guaranty Trust and the original

W.A. Harriman Company were established by members of The Order. Brown Brothers was not absorbed until 1933.

Now, let's examine the evidence that these two banking firms have been vehicles for creation of war and revolution.

Return to Contents