"Science," the Greek word for knowledge, when appended to the word "political," creates what seems like an oxymoron. For who could claim to know politics? More complicated than any game, most people who play it become addicts and die without understanding what they were addicted to. The rest of us suffer under their malpractice as our "leaders." A truer case of the blind leading the blind could not be found. Plumb the depths of confusion here.


Postby admin » Sat Aug 01, 2015 6:52 am

Memorandum Number Nine: The Bundy Operation

If The Order had a reasonably "normal" life style, there would be no necessity for, and no substance in, this book. Unfortunately for us they do not have a normal life style.

The Order does not just go to college, look for a secure post with an establishment law firm, intermarry with the sisters and daughters of other members, get noisily drunk at the country club and go to church on Sunday. These may be reasonably "normal" patterns, but certainly not topics for research and analysis.

A proportion of The Order follows a life style which can best be described as: AMBITIOUS ACTIVISM TOWARDS A NEW WORLD ORDER GOAL.

Let's select one family -- the Bundy family -- fairly typical of another 20 or so families in The Order, and take a closer look.

The Bundy family came to the United States from England before 1635 and settled first in Boston, then in Taunton, Massachusetts. The family is one of lawyers and politicians with four members in The Order.

Date Initiated / Name / Key Activities
1909: Harvey Hollister Bundy: Special assistant to Secretary of War Stimson
1921: Frederick McGeorge Bundy: Selling fish fillets
1939: William Putnam Bundy: CIA, Editor Foreign Affairs
1940: McGeorge Bundy: Government and foundation official

Frederick McGeorge Bundy is an example of a member who is initiated and then, apparently, is disinclined to do more. We can safely ignore Fred: his great achievement in life was Chairman of the North Atlantic Fillet Council which sounds vaguely like a government policy organization, but is concerned merely with marketing fish fillets. If the other Bundys had followed in Fred's honest, industrious footsteps and confined their activism to fish fillets, the world would be a lot safer, saner place.

Unfortunately, they didn't. The other three Bundys -- Harvey Hollister and two of his three sons, William Putnam and McGeorge -- are key activists and the activism has a Hegelian pattern, i.e., creation of conflict to bring about change.

Let's take a look at each of the activist Bundys:

Harvey Hollister Bundy

Born Grand Rapids, Michigan 1888, died 1963. His grandfather was a lawyer and Congressman, and his father was a lawyer too. Harvey Hollister described himself as lawyer and government official. Bundy was initiated into The Order in 1909. After a Harvard law degree and some world travel he became law clerk to Supreme Court Associate Justice Wendell Holmes (1914-1915). By coincidence, Alger Hiss, later convicted of perjury in the celebrated Chambers-Hiss trials involving Soviet espionage, was also a law clerk to Justice Holmes (1929-1930).

Harvey Hollister Bundy senior had five children, of whom three linked themselves to The Order.

The eldest son, Harvey Hollister, graduated Yale 1938, but was not initiated into Skull & Bones. He's a banker who, like Fred, keeps away from activism.

The next eldest is William Putnam Bundy, initiated in 1939. The next son is McGeorge Bundy, initiated in 1940. The eldest daughter, Harriet Lowell Bundy, married Gasper d'Andelot Belin, a partner in Covington and Burling and initiated with William Bundy in 1939. The youngest daughter, Katherine Lawrence Bundy, married Hugh Auchincloss, Jr.

The two Bundy boys have been the real activists.

William P. Bundy

Here's William Bundy's career in brief: ·

• 1947-1951 Law firm Covington & Burling in Washington. D.C.
• 1951-1961 Central Intelligence Agency
• 1960 Staff Director of Presidential Commission on National Goals
• 1961-3 Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs
• 1964-9 Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs in the Vietnam War period.
• 1969-71 Visiting Professor at Center for International Studies, MIT
• 1972 Editor of Foreign Affairs, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) quarterly and the most prestigious foreign affairs journal in the U.S. A guide for all policy makers. Winston Lord (The Order) is Chairman of CFR.

Bundy is a member of the American Assembly and the Council on Foreign Relations.

Clearly, Mr. Bundy has been appointed to some very influential positions in the last 30 years. As the Washington law firm of Covington & Burling is intimately linked to Government regulatory affairs, it's reasonable to presume that Bundy probably had CIA dealings in the 1947-51 period and then moved to CIA to expand on these projects. The firm of Covington & Burling represents more than 100 top U.S. firms in Washington. Former partners have included William Bundy's father-in-law, Dean Acheson, and brother-in-law, Gasper Belin, (The Order).

An interesting aspect of this law firm, where the Bundy family consists of the single most influential element in the past few decades, is its creation of "left wing" political activity. This creative activity brings to mind the McCarthy Senate hearings on subversion of the 1953 era when Senator Joseph McCarthy wanted to call William Bundy as a witness before the Committee and found the establishment strongly arrayed against this idea (Bundy had given $400 to the Alger Hiss Defense fund). In retrospect it may have been more than McCarthy's harsh treatment of witnesses -- which is on the record -- that prompted establishment horror. There may indeed have been some skeletons in the closet (and perhaps some bones) that the Senator could have unwittingly unearthed, and these skeletons had nothing to do with domestic communism.

In any event, as Quigley pointed out in Tragedy and Hope, the J.P. Morgan firm had financed the noncommunist left in the United States for political control. It seems that Covington & Burling may well be another conduit. Some preliminary evidence:

• Covington & Burling partner John Douglas is the son of Paul H. Douglas -- who was one of the most prominent radicals of the 30s and 40s and an outspoken member of the non-communist left. John Douglas was a key coordinator in the 1972 George McGovern campaign: McGovern, of course, being on the left end of the political spectrum.
• Another former partner is Senator Charles Mathias, whose political stance is more or less at the left end of the Republican Party and along the lines of George Bush's (The Order) internationalist line.
Yet another partner is Michael Boudin. son of Leonard Boudin and brother of Kathy Boudin. This should raise some eyebrows as Kathy was on the FBI "Most Wanted" list. Leonard Boudin is the long time communist front lawyer and member of the National Lawyers Guild ("The foremost legal bulwark of the Communist Party''), New Masses ("a communist periodical") and a dozen other Communist fronts. Kathy was a founder of Students for a Democratic Society and a leader in its terrorist Weathermen faction. A bomb manufacturing enterprise got the group into trouble with the law and Kathy onto the FBI list.

In brief, we have the elements of a hypothesis that left wing activity in the U.S., down to bomb making and outright terrorism, may link to Covington and Burling -- and the CIA. This is not a new assertion. Statements have been made before that the CIA has funded the left in the U.S. This claim hasn't received too much publicity for two reasons: (a) it offends the establishment media, which prefers to pose the CIA as a "right" organization and (b) it doesn't make much sense.

It certainly doesn't make any sense unless you throw your mind back to Memorandum Number Six and the Hegelian dialectic process. In this process change requires conflict, and conflict requires the clash of opposites. You can't just have a "right," you must have a "right" and a "left." You can't have just a pro-Vietnam War policy, you must also have an anti-Vietnam War policy. Else the dialectical process won't bring about change. An interesting thought.

To move on, in 1960 Bundy, while still at CIA, became Staff Director for the newly formed Presidential Commission on National Goals. Such a commission, even in its title, assumes conscious direction. If you have goals, you logically need a device to achieve these goals. In a society like the U.S. it should be a superfluous sort of commission unless there is some "guiding hand," something more than the voting booth and the market place at work.

The Report of this Commission came up with some quotes which are almost pure Hegelianism:

(a) "a role of government is to stimulate changes of attitude."

(b) "in the 1960s every American is summoned to extraordinary personal responsibility, sustained effort, and sacrifice".

(c) "The American citizen in the years ahead ought to devote a larger portion of his time and energy directly to solution of the nation's problems ... many ways are open for citizens to participate in the attainment of national goals."

Now the basic set of rules governing our society is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. There is nothing in these constitutional documents to support any of these demands. What the demands imply is that an American citizen has a DUTY to advance the will of the State. But such an assumption is definitely NOT implicit in the philosophy under which the United States was founded and presumably operates today.

In 1972, after a stint of government service, Bundy took over Foreign Affairs, the most prestigious and influential foreign affairs journal in the U.S.: the bible for policy makers.

So William Bundy is a very influential man. Enough that three aspects of his career require further investigation:

• The Hegelian tinge, that a citizen has a duty to the State,
• The operation of the Hegelian dialectic and whether any "left" operations can be traced more directly to Covington and Burling,
• Whether Bundy's service in Government shows promotion of "right" operations, needed to balance off the "left" operations.

McGeorge Bundy

Preferential treatment has been accorded McGeorge Bundy all the way along the line.

Graduating Yale and joining The Order in 1940, Bundy spent a while at Harvard and then joined the U.S. Army "as a private''.

Within 12 months Bundy had rocketed to captain and staff officer working on Operation Husky (the invasion of Sicily) and Operation Overlord (the invasion of Normandy).

If there is one job in this world that requires experience, it must be a staff planning officer for an amphibious operation. Only experience can make the calculations of timing and logistics for personnel and supplies come out right. And men's lives depend on this experience. Can a 23-year-old, with no military experience, undertake planning for amphibious operations? The answer is obviously no even if his father (The Order) is in the Pentagon as an aide to the Secretary of War (The Order).

The war in Europe finished, Bundy now a veteran of 27 years, went straight to the Pentagon as assistant to the Secretary of War, Henry Stimson. We have already noted Bundy worked on the manuscript of On Active Service in Peace and War and was rewarded with co-authorship, a definite leg up in his career.

Then, in quick succession, Bundy became consultant to the Economic Cooperation Administration, although he presumably knew no more about economics than amphibious landing, then foreign policy analyst for Presidential candidate Thomas Dewey, then analyst for the Council on Foreign Relations. By 1949 Bundy was invited to Harvard University and in four years (1953) was made Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences.

We are asked to believe that out of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of experienced academics with decades of hard-won credentials, an assistant professor -- who has been, skipping around the non-academic world for ten years is the most talented for the post of Harvard Dean! We might accept the lack of experience in amphibious warfare planning and economic programs planning, but Dean of a prestigious Harvard department in four years! No, that's too much. It smells of "pull" and few readers will dispute that conclusion.

From 1961 to 1966 Bundy was Special Assistant for National Security Affairs to Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. There is a significant aspect of this sensitive post which only surfaced under Henry Kissinger. The post can be used to screen information reaching the President: in fact, that is one of its major purposes, to stop a flood of paper reaching the Presidential desk.

The other side to this screening process is that it could place the President in an artificial information environment. If the options presented to the President are controlled, so are the decisions. Selected information can control the options.

McGeorge Bundy was National Security Adviser in the early years of the Vietnam debacle. While McGeorge Bundy (The Order) was in the White House his brother, William P. Bundy (The Order) was in key positions relating to the Far East in Defense and State Departments. By acting jointly, the Bundy brothers could have controlled absolutely the flow of information relating to Vietnam from Intelligence, State and DOD. We are not saying this happened. We believe it to be a hypothesis worthy of examination. As they are blood brothers in a secret organization of which we know very little -- and nothing voluntarily -- we have reason to make this further examination.

In 1966 McGeorge Bundy was appointed President of the Ford Foundation, a post he retained until 1979. While at Ford, Bundy brought in as Vice President in charge of Education and Research Division another member of The Order -- Harold Howe II.

Howe's qualifications, apart from a Yale undergraduate degree, can be described in Howe's own words:

"... in the old scheme of things I would not have qualifications to be a professor -- I have no PhD degree, no scholarly research publications to my credit. I once applied to the Yale Graduate School but was turned down as academically unpromising." (Apparently The Order doesn't reach everywhere, even at Yale).

Some of the half-baked ideas Howe and Bundy promoted with Ford Foundation money probably stem from Howe's philosophy. In Howe's own words, "When in doubt, do it." For example, we have this gem from Howe:

"... we will have to re-think American values regarding cooperation and competition ... many schools (particularly secondary schools) would define as "cheating" the kinds of cooperative activities whereby students help each other instead of competing for places on the ladder of academic success."

This is pure Hegelian collectivism.
It undoubtedly works to the advantage of The Order: this moves the citizen to a dependency role and away from reliance on individual faculties.

It is noteworthy that both Fords on the board resigned in disgust with Ford Foundation policies.
Site Admin
Posts: 31701
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Postby admin » Sat Aug 01, 2015 6:57 am

Memorandum Number Ten: Keeping The Lid On The Pot

The Order's control of history, through foundations and the American Historical Association, has been effective. Not so much because of outright censorship, although that is an important element, but more because of the gullibility of the American "educated public."

From time to time their plans go awry. The bubbling pot of political manipulation -- it's called conflict management on the inside -- threatens to spill over into public view. It is extraordinary how newspaper editors, columnists, TV and radio commentators, and publishers either lack insight to see beyond the superficial or are scared witless to do so. Even worse, the educated public, the 30-40 million degree holders, lets these opinion molders get away with it.

Outright censorship has not been too effective. There has certainly been a campaign to suppress revisionist interpretations of history. Witness Harry Elmer Barnes in The Struggle Against The Historical Blackout:

It may be said, with great restraint, that, never since the Dark and Middle Ages, have there been so many powerful forces organized and alerted against the assertion and acceptance of historical truth as are active today to prevent the facts about the responsibility for the second World War and its results from being made generally accessible to the American public. Even the great Rockefeller Foundation frankly admits (Annual Report, 1946, p. 188) the subsidizing of a corps of historians to anticipate and frustrate the development of any neo-Revisionism in our time. And the only difference between this Foundation and several others is that it has been more candid and forthright about its politics.

This author's personal experience of attempted outright censorship was at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, when the Director attempted to suppress publication of my then forthcoming National Suicide: Military Aid To The Soviet Union. The facts weren't in question. Unfortunately, the book offended the Nixon-Kissinger program to aid the Soviets while they were aiding the North Vietnamese -- so in effect, Americans were being killed by our own technology. In this case neither author nor publisher was in a mood to listen, and the Establishment put tail between legs and called it a day.

More effective than outright censorship is use of the left-right political spectrum to neutralize unwelcome facts and ideas or just condition citizens to think along certain lines.

The "left" leaning segment of the press can always be relied upon to automatically assault ideas and information from the "right" and vice versa. In fact, media outlets have been artificially set up just for this purpose: both Nation and New Republic on the "left" were financed by Willard Straight, using Payne Whitney (The Order) funds. On the "right" National Review published by William Buckley (The Order) runs a perpetual deficit, presumably made up by Buckley.

Neither the independent right nor the independent left sees the trap. They are so busy firing at each other they've mostly forgotten to look behind the scenes. And The Order smugly claims control of the "moderate" center. A neat game, and it's worked like a charm. But the establishment has a problem ...

In Fact, It Has Several Problems

They are on the inside looking out. We are on the outside looking in. They may call us "peasants" but we have the advantage of knowing about the real world and its infinite diversity. Their global objectives are dreams based on skewed information. Dangerous dreams, but still dreams.

(1) The Order Lives In A Cultural Straightjacket

All the power in the world is useless without accurate information. If you meet these people as this author has more or less casually over 30 years, one impression comes to the forefront -- they are charming but with a limited perception of the world. They may have global ambitions, they may act politically like miniature power houses, but their knowledge of the world comes from an in-group and those who play along with the in-group. And the in-group lacks morality and diversity. It's a kind of jet set Politburo. Charming, power-hungry and myopic simultaneously.

All it can offer to the outsider is an invitation, almost an ultimatum, "You are part of the establishment." Which has as much interest for many as a Frederick Bundy fish fillet. Perhaps one of the exceptions is house conservative William Buckley, Jr. -- at least his cynicism is marked by witty incisiveness. The rest are a pretty sad bunch.

(2) An Easy Prey For the Ambitious

Limited perception makes members of The Order a target and an easy prey for the ambitious outsider ... who needs only the ability to say the right things at the right time to the right people, coupled with a sense of unscrupulousness. Henry Kissinger is a prime example -- an outsider who wants desperately to stay on the inside. More devious than clever, but expert at using deviousness for his own ends.

Conservative readers may not agree, but Secretary of State Dean Acheson, who defended a guilty Alger Hiss to the bitter end, was probably more stupid than culpable. Which leads us to,

(3) Genetic Problems

Extensive intermarriage among the families raises a serious question of genetic malfunctions. Membership lists are heavily laced with Dodge, Whitney, Phelps, Perkins, Norton, Putnam used as middle (maternal) names. Cultural inhibitions are obvious, the intellectual limitations from genetic factors are more difficult to analyze and describe.

(4) Shallow Power Base

It may be as Rosenbaum comments, that The Order is "incredibly powerful". On the other hand, it is also incredibly weak -- there is no philosophic or cultural depth to The Order.

Diversity is strength and The Order lacks diversity.

The vast bulk of the American people, that giant melting pot of Anglo, Germanic, Slavic, Hispanic, black, yellow, and who knows what else has been suckered. Many of them know it. Some are now going to know by whom.

When they've overcome the disbelief, the shock and perhaps some fear, they are surely going to say "What do we do?"

The great strength of individualism, an atomistic social order where the individual holds ultimate sovereignty, is that any counter revolution to an imposed social order where the State is boss, can take a million roads and a million forms.

No one is going to create an anti-The Order movement. That would be foolish and unnecessary. It could be infiltrated, bought off, or diverted all too easily. Much too easily.

Why play by the rules set by the enemy?

The movement that will topple The Order will be extremely simple and most effective. It will be ten thousand or a million Americans who come to the conclusion that they don't want the State to be boss, that they prefer to live under the protection of the Constitution. They will make their own independent decision to thwart The Order, and it will take ten thousand or a million forms.

The only weakness is communication. The Order has so wrecked education that reading comprehension is difficult for many -- that's part of the brainwashing program. But there are more than enough readers. Most people prefer to talk, anyway.

The program of The Order might work in Russia, which has a history of obedience to the State; it's barely working in Poland, while in England "The Group" survives because enough of class structure and attitude remain. It can never work in the United States.


In the first introductory volume we have laid out the preliminary groundwork and suggested some hypotheses we need to examine. An understanding of The Order, the havoc it has wreaked on American society, its plans for future havoc -- perpetual war for perpetual peace -- is a logical step by step process.

The next step is to look at education. Our present educational chaos can be traced to three members of The Order: Daniel Coit Gilman (First President of University of California and First President of Johns Hopkins University), Timothy Dwight (twelfth President of Yale University) and Andrew Dickson White (First President of Cornell University).

Gilman imported the experimental psychology of Hegelian physiologist Wilhelm Wundt from Germany. This psychology was grafted onto the American education system through the educational laboratories at Columbia and Chicago University. And they moved a familiar name, John Dewey, a pure Hegelian in philosophy, along the fast track in his career. This has been aptly termed "The Leipzig Connection" by Lance J. Klass and Paolo Lionni.

Then we shall look at the Foundations, how these were captured by The Order and their gigantic funds used to finance a Hegelian educational system designed to condition future society. It is doubtful if John D. Rockefeller or Mrs. Russell Sage, and certainly the Ford family, ever quite understood how their philanthropies were used for a long-term conditioning plan.

It is also doubtful if The Order forecast the public backlash of the 1970s and 1980s -- not all children have succumbed to the social conditioning brainwashing, parents have more than once risen in part revolt, private schools have sprouted like spring flowers in the desert and perhaps enough academics have slipped through a net designed to contain and neutralize independent research and thinking.

After we have looked at education and foundations we still have to work our way through the system of "perpetual war for perpetual peace." How The Order has financed revolution and profited from war. The objective? To keep the conflict boiling because conflict for Hegel is essential for change and the forward motion of society. Then we have to look at the financial system and the Federal Reserve. The Order was there right from the start.

In conclusion we must emphasize one point. An understanding of The Order and its modus operandi is impossible unless the reader holds in mind the Hegelian roots of the game plan. Hegelianism is alien to grass roots America. The national character is straightforward and to the point, not devious and tortuous. The grass roots are still closer to the American Revolution, the Jeffersonian Democrats, the classical liberal school of Cobden and Bright in England, and the Austrian School of Economics where Ludwig von Mises is the undisputed leader.

These schools of thought have been submerged in the public eye by pirate-like onslaught of The Order and its many minions, but they still very much represent the daily operation of American society. From billionaire Bunker Hunt in Dallas, Texas to the seventeen year old black trying to "survive" in the Los Angeles ghetto, individual initiative is still more than obvious in American society.

A Statist system is the objective of The Order. But in spite of constant prattling about "change" by zombie supporters -- such a system is foreign to deeply held beliefs in this country.

Above all the reader must -- at least temporarily while reading this work -- put to one side the descriptive clichés of left and right, liberal and conservative, communist and fascist, even republican and democrat. These terms may be important for self recognition, they do provide a certain reassurance, but they are confusing in our context unless seen as essential elements in a game plan. You will never understand The Order if you try to label it right or left.

A Robert Taft and a William Buckley on the right are just as important -- the forward motion of society, the fundamental change desired by The Order, as a William Sloan Coffin and a Harry Payne Whitney (who financed the left). Their conflict is essential for change.


This hypothesis, of course, reflects the gulf between The Order and American society. The gulf stems from the differing views of the relationship between the State and the individual.

Which is superior? Our whole way of life is based on the assumption that the individual is superior to the State. That the individual is the ultimate holder of sovereignty. That the State is the servant of the people. It's deeply engrained within us.

The Order holds the opposite -- that the State is superior, that the common man (the peasant) can find freedom only by obedience to the State.

Now, of course, the State is a fiction. So who or what controls the State?

Obviously, The Order.
Site Admin
Posts: 31701
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Postby admin » Sat Aug 01, 2015 7:10 am


Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research (President 1910-1934 Wm. H. Welch ('70))
American Economic Association -- first Secretary Richard T. Ely
U.S. Naval Academy, William Chauvenet ('40)
UNESCO -- Constitution, Archibald MacLeish ('15)
Union Theological Seminary -- President 1926-1945 Rev. Henry Sloane Coffin ('97)

Memorandum Number One: It All Began At Yale

The first volume of this series introduced The Order, presented three preliminary hypotheses with examples of the evidence to come.

We also asserted that any group that wanted to control the future of American society had first to control education, i.e., the population of the future. This volume will outline the way in which education has been controlled by The Order.

It all began at Yale. Even the official Yale history is aware of Yale's power and success:

"The power of the place remain(s) unmistakable. Yale was organized. Yale inspired a loyalty in its sons that was conspicuous and impressive. Yale men in after life made such records that the suspicion was that even there they were working for each other. In short, Yale was exasperatingly and mysteriously successful. To rival institutions and to academic reformers there was something irritating and disquieting about old Yale College." [1]

"Yale was exasperatingly and mysteriously successful," says the official history.

And this success was more than obvious to Yale's chief competitor, Harvard University. So obvious, in fact, that in 1892 a young Harvard instructor, George Santanyana, went to Yale to investigate this "disturbing legend" of Yale power. Santanyana quoted a Harvard alumnus who intended to send his son to Yale -- because in real life "all the Harvard men are working for Yale men." [2]

But no one has previously asked an obvious question -- Why? What is this "Yale power"?

A Revolutionary Yale Trio

In the 1850s, three members of The Order left Yale and working together, at times with other members along the way, made a revolution that changed the face, direction and purpose of American education. It was a rapid, quiet revolution, and eminently successful. The American people even today, in 1983, are not aware of a coup d'etat.

The revolutionary trio were:

Timothy Dwight ('49) Professor in the Yale Divinity School and then 12th President of Yale University.
• Daniel Coit Gilman ('52), first President of the University of California, first President of the Johns Hopkins University and first President of the Carnegie Institution.
• Andrew Dickson White ('53), first President of Cornell University and first President of the American Historical Association.

This notable trio were all initiated into The Order within a few years of each other (1849, 1852, 1853). They immediately set off for Europe. All three went to study philosophy at the University of Berlin, where post-Hegelian philosophy had a monopoly.

• Dwight studied at the Universities of Berlin and Bonn between 1856 and 1858,
• Gilman was at the University of Berlin between 1854 and 55 under Karl von Ritter and Friedrich Trendelenberg, both prominent "Right" Hegelians, and
• White studied at the University of Berlin between 1856 and 1858.

Notably also at the University of Berlin in 1856 (at the Institute of Physiology) was none other than Wilhelm Wundt, the founder of experimental psychology in Germany and the later source of the dozens of American PhDs who came back from Leipzig, Germany to start the modern American education movement.

Why is the German experience so important? Because these were the formative years, the immediate post graduate years for these three men, the years when they were planning the future, and at this period Germany was dominated by the Hegelian philosophical ferment.

There were two groups of these Hegelians. The right Hegelians, were the roots of Prussian militarism and the spring for the unification of Germany and the rise of Hitler. Key names among right Hegelians were Karl Ritter (at the University of Berlin where our trio studied), Baron von Bismarck, and Baron von Stockmar, confidential adviser to Queen Victoria over in England. Somewhat before this, Karl Theodor Dalberg (1744-1817), arch-chancellor in the German Reich, related to Lord Acton in England and an Illuminati (Baco v Verulam in the Illuminati code), was a right Hegelian.

There were also Left Hegelians, the promoters of scientific socialism. Most famous of these, of course, are Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Heinrich Heine, Max Stirner and Moses Hess.

The point to hold in mind is that both groups use Hegelian theory of the State as a start point, i.e., the State is superior to the individual. Prussian militarism, Nazism and Marxism have the same philosophic roots.

And it left its mark on our trio.

Daniel Coit Gilman

Gilman wrote his sister in 1854 that what he most desired to do on returning home to America was to "influence New England minds."

An extract from one Gilman letter is worth quoting at length.

Daniel C. Gilman in 1852 as a senior in Yale College.

Daniel C. Gilman in the early seventies as president of the University of California

Gilman wrote his sister from St. Petersburg in April, 1854:

nd what do you think I am "keeping" for? Tell me, some day when you write, for every year makes me feel that I must draw nearer to a point. When I go home to America I must have some definite notions. Day and night I think of that time, and in all I see and do I am planning for being useful at home. I find my wishes cling more and more towards a home in New England, and I long for an opportunity to influence New England minds. If I am an editor, New York is the place; but, to tell the truth, I am a little afraid of its excitements, its politics, its money-making whirl. I look therefore more and more to the ministry as probably the place where I can do more good than anywhere else; that is to say, if I can have a congregation which will let me preach such things as we have talked over so many times in our up-stairs confabs. I am glad you remember those talks with pleasure, for I look upon them as among the greatest "providences" of my life. If ever I make anything in this world or another I shall owe it to the blessed influences of home. For me, it seems as though new notions and wider views of men and things were crowding upon me with wonderful rapidity, and every day and almost every hour I think of some new things which I wish to have accomplished in America.... I find my thoughts, unconsciously, almost, dwelling on the applications of Christianity or the principles of the New Testament to business, study, public education, political questions, travel, and so forth. I had a long talk with Mr. Porter in Berlin (it was three days long with occasional interruptions) on topics related to such as I have named, and he assures me that there are many places in New England ripe for the advocacy of some such views upon these questions as I have often hinted to you at home. I told him a great deal about my thoughts on such things, talking quite as freely and perhaps more fully than I have ever done with you girls at home: He seemed exceedingly interested .... He told me that the kind of preaching I spoke of was the kind now needed -- the kind which would be most influential of good -- and on the whole he encouraged me to attempt it. I feel more and more desirous to do so, and shall keep on, in all I see and hear abroad, with the examination of every influence now working upon men -- churches and schools, politics and literature ... [3]

Daniel Coit Gilman is the key activist in the revolution of education by The Order. The Gilman family came to the United States from Norfolk, England in 1638. On his mother's side, the Coit family came from Wales to Salem, Massachusetts before 1638.

Gilman was born in Norwich, Connecticut July 8, 1831, from a family laced with members of The Order and links to Yale College (as it was known at that time).

Uncle Henry Coit Kingsley (The Order '34) was Treasurer of Yale from 1862 to 1886. James I. Kingsley was Gilman's uncle and a Professor at Yale. William M. Kingsley, a cousin, was editor of the influential journal New Englander.

On the Coit side of the family, Joshua Coit was a member of The Order in 1853 as well as William Coit in 1887.

Gilman's brother-in-law, the Reverend Joseph Parrish Thompson ('38) was in The Order.

Gilman returned from Europe in late 1855 and spent the next 14 years in New Haven, Connecticut -- almost entirely in and around Yale, consolidating the power of The Order.

His first task in 1856 was to incorporate Skull & Bones as a legal entity under the name of The Russell Trust. Gilman became Treasurer and William H. Russell, the cofounder, was President. It is notable that there is no mention of The Order, Skull & Bones, The Russell Trust, or any secret society activity in Gilman's biography, nor in open records. The Order, so far as its members are concerned, is designed to be secret, and apart from one or two inconsequential slips, meaningless unless one has the whole picture. The Order has been remarkably adept at keeping its secret. In other words, The Order fulfills our first requirement for a conspiracy -- i.e., IT IS SECRET.

The information on The Order that we are using surfaced by accident. In a way similar to the surfacing of the Illuminati papers in 1783, when a messenger carrying Illuminati papers was killed and the Bavarian police found the documents. All that exists publicly for The Order is the charter of the Russell Trust, and that tells you nothing.

On the public record then, Gilman became assistant Librarian at Yale in the fall of 1856 and "in October he was chosen to fill a vacancy on the New Haven Board of Education." In 1858 he was appointed Librarian at Yale. Then he moved to bigger tasks.

The Sheffield Scientific School

The Sheffield Scientific School, the science departments at Yale, exemplifies the way in which The Order came to control Yale and then the United States.

In the early 1850s, Yale science was insignificant, just two or three very small departments. In 1861 these were concentrated into the Sheffield Scientific School with private funds from Joseph E. Sheffield. Gilman went to work to raise more funds for expansion.

Gilman's brother had married the daughter of Chemistry Professor Benjamin Silliman (The Order, 1837). This brought Gilman into contact with Professor Dana, also a member of the Silliman family, and this group decided that Gilman should write a report on reorganization of Sheffield. This was done and entitled "Proposed Plan for the Complete Reorganization of the School of Science Connected with Yale College."

While this plan was worked out, friends and members of The Order made moves in Washington, D.C., and the Connecticut State Legislature to get state funding for the Sheffield Scientific School. The Morrill Land Bill was introduced into Congress in 1857, passed in 1859, but vetoed by President Buchanan. It was later signed by President Lincoln. This bill, now known as the Land Grant College Act, donated public lands for State colleges of agriculture and sciences .... and of course Gilman's report on just such a college was ready. The legal procedure was for the Federal government to issue land scrip in proportion to a state's representation, but state legislatures first had to pass legislation accepting the scrip. Not only was Daniel Gilman first on the scene to get Federal land scrip, he was first among all the states and grabbed all of Connecticut's share for Sheffield Scientific School! Gilman had, of course, tailored his report to fit the amount forthcoming for Connecticut. No other institution in Connecticut received even a whisper until 1893, when Storrs Agricultural College received a land grant.

Of course it helped that a member of The Order, Augustus Brandegee ('49), was speaker of the Connecticut State Legislature in 1861 when the state bill was moving through, accepting Connecticut's share for Sheffield. Other members of The Order, like Stephen W. Kellogg ('46) and William Russell ('33), were either in the State Legislature or had influence from past service.

The Order repeated the same grab for public funds in New York State. All of New York's share of the Land Grant College Act went to Cornell University. Andrew Dickson White, a member of our trio, was the key activist in New York and later became first President of Cornell. Daniel Gilman was rewarded by Yale and became Professor of Physical Geography at Sheffield in 1863.

In brief, The Order was able to corner the total state shares for Connecticut and New York, cutting out other scholastic institutions. This is the first example of scores we shall present in this series -- how The Order uses public funds for its own objectives.

And this, of course, is the great advantage of Hegel for an elite. The State is absolute. But the State is also a fiction. So if The Order can manipulate the State, it in effect becomes the absolute. A neat game. And like the Hegelian dialectic process we cited in the first volume, the Order has worked it like a charm.

Back to Sheffield Scientific School. The Order now had funds for Sheffield and proceeded to consolidate its control. In February 1871 the School was incorporated and the following became trustees:

Charles J. Sheffield
Prof. G.J. Brush (Gilman's close friend)
Daniel Coit Gilman (The Order, '52)
W.T. Trowbridge
John S. Beach (The Order, '39)
William W. Phelps (The Order, '60)

Out of six trustees, three were in The Order. In addition, George St. John Sheffield, son of the benefactor, was initiated in 1863, and the first Dean of Sheffield was J.A. Porter, also the first member of Scroll & Key (the supposedly competitive senior society at Yale).

How The Order Came To Control Yale University

From Sheffield Scientific School The Order broadened its horizons.

The Order's control over all Yale was evident by the 1870s, even under the administration of Noah Porter (1871-1881), who was not a member. In the decades after the 1870s, The Order tightened its grip. The Iconoclast (October 13, 1873) summarizes the facts we have presented on control of Yale by The Order, without being fully aware of the details:

"They have obtained control of Yale. Its business is performed by them. Money paid to the college must pass into their hands, and be subject to their will. No doubt they are worthy men in themselves, but the many whom they looked down upon while in college, cannot so far forget as to give money freely into their hands. Men in Wall Street complain that the college comes straight to them for help, instead of asking each graduate for his share. The reason is found in a remark made by one of Yale's and America's first men: 'Few will give but Bones men, and they care far more for their society than they do for the college.' The Woolsey Fund has but a struggling existence, for kindred reasons."

"Here, then, appears the true reason for Yale's poverty. She is controlled by a few men who shut themselves off from others, and assume to be their superiors ..."

The anonymous writer of Iconoclast blames The Order for the poverty of Yale. But worse was to come. Then-President Noah Porter was the last of the clerical Presidents of Yale (1871-1881), and the last without either membership or family connections to The Order.

After 1871 the Yale Presidency became almost a fiefdom for The Order.

From 1886 to 1899, member Timothy Dwight ('49) was President, followed by another member of The Order, Arthur Twining Hadley (1899 to 1921). Then came James R. Angell (1921-37), not a member of The Order, who came to Yale from the University of Chicago where he worked with Dewey, built the School of Education, and was past President of the American Psychological Association.

From 1937 to 1950 Charles Seymour, a member of The Order was President followed by Alfred Whitney Griswold from 1950 to 1963. Griswold was not a member, but both the Griswold and Whitney families have members in The Order. For example, Dwight Torrey Griswold ('08) and William Edward Schenk Griswold ('99) were in The Order. In 1963 Kingman Brewster took over as President. The Brewster family has had several members in The Order, in law and the ministry rather than education.

We can best conclude this memorandum with a quotation from the anonymous Yale observer:

"Whatever want the college suffers, whatever is lacking in her educational course, whatever disgrace lies in her poor buildings, whatever embarrassments have beset her needy students, so far as money could have availed, the weight of blame lies upon this ill-starred society. The pecuniary question is one of the future as well as of the present and past. Year by year the deadly evil is growing. The society was never as obnoxious to the college as it is today, and it is just this ill-feeling that shuts the pockets of nonmembers. Never before has it shown such arrogance and self-fancied superiority. It grasps the College Press and endeavors to rule in all. It does not deign to show its credentials, but clutches at power with the silence of conscious guilt."


Member / Date Initiated / Position at Yale
BEEBE, William: 1873 : Professor of Mathematics (1882-1917)
BEERS, Henry A.: 1869: Professor of English Literature (1874-1926)
BELLINGER, Alfred R.: 1917: Professor of Greek (1926-
DAHL, George: 1908: Professor Yale Divinity School (1914-1929)
DARLING, Arthur B.: 1916: Professor of History (1925-1933)
DAY, Clive: 1892: Professor of Economic History (1902-1938)
DEXTER, Franklin B.: 1861: Secretary, Yale University (1869-99)
DWIGHT, Timothy: 1849: President of Yale University (1886-98)
FARNAM, Henry: 1874: Professor of Economics (1880-1933)
FARNAM, William: 1866: Trustee Sheffield Scientific School (1894-1923)
FRENCH, Robert D.: 1910: Professor of English (1919-1950)
GILMAN, Daniel C.: 1852: See text.
GRAVES, Henry S.: 1892: Dean, Yale School of Forestry (1900-1939)
GRUENER, G.: 1884: Professor of German (1892-1928)
HADLEY, Arthur T.: 1876: President of Yale (1899-1921)
HILLES, Frederick W.: 1922: Professor of English (1931-
HOLDEN, Reuben A.: 1940: Assistant to President (1947-
HOPPIN, James M.: 1840: Professor of History of Art (1861-99)
INGERSOLL, James W.: 1892: Professor of Latin (1897-1921)
JONES, Frederick S.: 1884: Dean, Yale College (1909-1926)
LEWIS, Chariton M.: 1886: Professor of English (1898-1923)
LOHMAN, Carl A.: 1910: Secretary, Yale University (1927-
LYMAN, Chester : 1837: Professor of Mechanics (1859-1890)
McLAUGHLIN, Edward T.: 1883: Professor of English (1890-93)
NORTHROP, Cyrus: 1857: P: Professor of Greek (1863-84)
PECK, Tracy: 1861: Professor of Latin (1889-1908)
PERRIN, Bernadotte: 1869: Professor of Greek (1893-1909)
PIERCE, Frederick E.: 1904: Professor of English (1910-35)
ROOT, Reginald D.: 1926: Yale football coach (1933-48)
SCHWAB, John C.: 1886: Professor of Political Economy (1893-1906)
SEYMOUR, Charles: 1908: Professor of History (1915-37); President (1936-1950)
SEYMOUR, Charles Jr.: 1935: Professor of Art (1949-
SILLIMAN, Benjamin Jr.: 1837: Professor of Chemistry (1846-85)
STOKES, Anson P.: 1896: Secretary of Yale (1899-1921)
SUMNER, William G.: 1863: Professor of Economics (1872-1909)
TAFT, William H.: 1878: Professor of Law (1913)
TARBELL, Frank B.: 1873: Professor of Greek (1882-87)
THACHER, Thomas A.: 1835: Professor of Latin (1842-86)
THOMPSON, John R.: 1938: Professor of Law (1949-
WALKER, Charles R.: 1916: Assistant Secretary (1943-45)
WOOLSEY, Theodore S.: 1872: Professor of International Law (1878-1929)
WRIGHT, Henry B.: 1898: Professor of History (1907-11)
WRIGHT, Henry P.: 1868: Professor of Latin (1871-1918); Dean, Yale College (1884-1909)


1. George Wilson Pierson, YALE COLLEGE 1871-1922 (Yale University Press. New Haven. 1952) . Volume One, p. 5.

2. E.E. Slosson, GREAT AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES (New York, 1910) pp. 59-60.

3. Fabian Franklin, THE LIFE OF DANIEL COIT GILMAN (Dodd, Mead. New York, 1910), pp. 28-9.
Site Admin
Posts: 31701
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Postby admin » Sat Aug 01, 2015 7:16 am

Memorandum Number Two: The Look-Say Reading Scam

A tragic failure of American education in this century has been a failure to teach children how to read and write and how to express themselves in a literary form. For the educational system this may not be too distressing. As we shall see later, their prime purpose is not to teach subject matter but to condition children to live as socially integrated citizen units in an organic society -- a real life enactment of the Hegelian absolute State. In this State the individual finds freedom only in obedience to the State, consequently the function of education is to prepare the individual citizen unit for smooth entry into the organic whole.

However, it is puzzling that the educational system allowed reading to deteriorate so markedly. It could be that The Order wants the citizen components of the organic State to be little more than automated order takers; after all a citizen who cannot read and write is not going to challenge The Order. But this is surmise. It is not, on the basis of the evidence presently at hand, a provable proposition.

In any event, the system adopted the look-say method of learning to read, originally developed for deaf mutes. The system has produced generations of Americans who are functionally illiterate. Yet, reading is essential for learning and learning is essential for most occupations. And certainly those who can read or write lack vocabulary in depth and stylistic skills. There are, of course, exceptions. This author spent five years teaching at a State University in the early 1960s and was appalled by the general inability to write coherent English, yet gratified that some students had not only evaded the system, acquired vocabulary and writing skills, but these exceptions had the most skepticism about The Establishment.

The Order comes into adoption of the look-say method directly and indirectly. Let's start at the beginning.

The Founder Of Deaf Mute Instruction

Look-say reading methods were developed around 1810 for deaf mutes by a truly remarkable man, Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet. Thomas H. Gallaudet was the eldest son of Peter Wallace Gallaudet, descended from a French Huguenot family, and Jane Hopkins. Jane Hopkins traced her ancestry back to John Hopkins and the Reverend Thomas Hooker in the seventeenth century, who broke away from the Congregational Church to help found Hartford, Connecticut. This parallels the story of the Lord family (see Volume One). The Lords also traced their ancestry back to Hopkins and Hooker and the Lords founded Hartford, Connecticut. And it was in Hartford, Connecticut in 1835 that a printer named Lord produced Thomas Gallaudet's first look-say primer, Mother's Primer.

Gallaudet's original intention was to use the look-say method only for deaf mutes who have no concept of a spoken language and are therefore unaware of phonetic sounds for letters. For this purpose, Gallaudet founded the Hartford School for the Deaf in 1817. The Gallaudet system works well for deaf mutes, but there is no obvious reason to use it for those who have the ability to hear sounds.

Anyway, in 1835 Mother's Primer was published and the Massachusetts Primary School Committee under Horace Mann immediately adopted the book on an experimental basis. Later we shall find that Horace Mann ties directly to The Order -- in fact, the cofounder of The Order. On pages 73-74 we reproduce two pages from the second edition of 1836, with the following directions to the teacher:

"... pointing to the whole word Frank, but not to the letters. Nothing is yet to be said about letters ..."


Late Principal of the Deaf and Dumb Asylum, Hartford.

frank jane
_____ _____
frank jane
jane frank

Directions to the Teacher. -- Say to the child, pointing to the first picture, "What is that? Do you know his name? I wonder if he has a name. Suppose we call him Frank. O there is his name, right under him," pointing to the whole word, Frank, but not to the letters. Nothing is yet to be said about letters. "Here is his name again. And here it is again. And here it is once more. What is that?" pointing to the other picture. "Perhaps it is Frank's sister. What is her name? O here is her name. It is Jane. Can you show me her name again? -- again -- once more." Repeat till the child can tell the words readily.

dog cat
_____ _____
dog cat
cat dog

Point to the first picture, "What is that? Here is the word dog under the picture. Can you show me the word dog again? -- again -- once more. That is Frank's dog. Well her is Jane's -- (pointing to the second picture) "What? Can you tell me? What word do you think that is right under Jane's cat? Can you show me the word cat again? -- again -- once more." Pointing to the word Frank, "What word is this?" So with the word Jane. Repeat till the words are thoroughly learned.

Why did Horace Mann push a method designed for deaf mutes onto a school system populated with persons who were not deaf mutes?

There are two possible reasons. The reader can take his or her pick.

First, in 1853 Mann was appointed President of Antioch College. The most influential Trustee of Antioch College was the co-founder of The Order -- Alphonso Taft.

Second, Mann never had a proper education and consequently was unable to judge a good method from a bad method for reading. Here's a description of Mann's school days:

"The opportunities for the lad's schooling were extremely meager. The locality enjoyed the reputation of being the smallest school district, with the poorest school house and the cheapest teacher in the State."

Mann's teacher was Samuel Barratt and we quote: "In arithmetic he was an idiot. He could not recite the multiplication table and could not tell the time of day by the clock ... Six months of the year he was an earnest and reliable teacher, tasting nothing stronger than tea, then for another six months he gave himself up to a state of beastly drunkenness . . ."

By 1840 there was a backlash, and the look-say system was dropped in Massachusetts.

The Second Attempt

Towards the end of the 19th century The Order came on the scene -- and the look-say method was revived. The youngest son of Thomas Hopkins and Sophia Gallaudet was Edward Miner Gallaudet. Two of his sons went to Yale and became members of The Order:

• Edson Fessenden Gallaudet ('93), who became an instructor of physics at Yale, and
• Herbert Draper Gallaudet ('98), who attended Union Theological Seminary and became a clergyman.

Then the method was adopted by Columbia Teachers' College and the Lincoln School. The thrust of the new Dewey-inspired system of education was away from learning and towards preparing a child to be a unit in the organic society. Look-say was ideal for Deweyites. It skipped one step in the learning process. It looked "easy," and de-emphasized reading skills.

The educational establishment rationalized look-say by claiming that up to the turn of the century reading was taught by "synthetic" methods, i.e., children were taught letters and an associated sound value. Then they learned to join syllables to make words. This was held to be uninteresting and artificial. Educational research, it was claimed, demonstrated that in reading words are not analyzed into component letter parts but seen as complete units. Therefore, learning to read should start with complete units.


Of course, there is a gigantic non-sequitur in this reasoning process. Certainly a skilled reader does see words as complete units. And a really skilled reader does see lines and paragraphs at a glance. But the accuracy of perceiving the whole is based on the degree of understanding and knowledge of the component parts.

The educational establishment argues today in the 1980s that, based on further experimental testing, it is easier for a child to read the line "the rocket zoomed into space" than "the cat sat on the mat." The first line has "contrasting visual structure" and the second quote has a "similar visual pattern."

What they have done now is to make a mountain out of a molehill, convert the relatively simple task of learning to read into an unnecessarily complex system.

Why? That we shall see as the story progresses.

The cat sat on the mat.
The rocket zoomed into space.

How children are taught to read - and why they can't.
Site Admin
Posts: 31701
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Postby admin » Sat Aug 01, 2015 7:25 am

Memorandum Number Three: The Illuminati Connection

We need to trace three historical lines in modern education: the first we looked at in Memorandum Number Two, the development of the look-say method of reading, its abandonment and its later adoption around the turn of the century.

Another line is the import of the experimental psychology of Wilhelm Wundt into the United States by The Order. This we shall examine in Memorandum Number Four.

For the moment we want to briefly trace the influence of Johann Friedrich Herbart, a major German philosopher of the early 19th century. There was at one time in the United States a National Herbart Society for the Scientific Study of Education to adapt Herbartian principles to American education. Later, this became just National Society for the Study of Education. You don't hear too much about Johann Herbart today, but his influence survives in the so-called "enriched" school curricula and in current educational methodology.

Our purpose in this memorandum is twofold: to show the Hegelian aspects of Herbartian theory and to trace the Illuminati connection. There is no direct connection to The Order. However, in a subsequent book, we will trace The Order to the Illuminati and this section will then fall into a logical place.

Herbart was an educational theorist as well as philosopher and psychologist, and strongly influenced Wilhelm Wundt. For Herbart, education had to be presented in a scientifically correct manner, and the chief purpose of education for Herbart is to prepare the child to live properly in the social order of which he is an integral part. Following Hegel, the individual is not important. The mere development of individual talent, of individual fitness, mental power and knowledge is not the purpose of education. The purpose is to develop personal character and social morality, and the most important task of the educator is to analyze the activities and duties of men within society.

The function of instruction is to fulfill these aims and impart to the individual socially desirable ideas. Morality for Herbart, therefore, is what is good for society, following Hegelian theory.

Herbartians favor grouping of subjects around a core topic, i.e., the grouping of history, social science and English literature. This enables the teacher to more easily draw out those notions useful to the objective.

All of these ideas we can recognize in today's educational philosophy came into American education through the Herbartian groups.

The Illuminati Connection

Johann Herbart studied at the University of Jena, and came under the influence of Johann Herder, Friedrich Schiller, Johann Fichte and Johann Goethe. Later, in Switzerland, Herbart came into contact with Johann Pestalozzi. What is interesting about these names, and they comprise the most important influence on Herbart, is that they are either known members of the Illuminati or reputed to be close to the Illuminati Order.

Let's take each name in turn:

• Johann Gottried Herder (1744-1803) was "Damascus pontifex" in the Illuminato.
• Johann Fichte, we have already noted in the previous volume, was close to the Illuminati and pushed by Goethe ("Abaris") for the post at the University of Jena, where Johann Herbart was studying.
• Friedrich Schiller (1759-1805) was known in the circle but not reliably recorded as an Illuminati member.
• Johann Wolfgang Goethe (1749-1832) was "Abaris" in the Illuminati.

We have an even more precise connection for another prominent Illuminati, Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi (1746-1827), a Swiss teacher of some renown living at Interlaken, and known as "Alfred" in the Illuminati code.

Before Herbart completed his doctorate, just after the turn of the 19th century, he spent three years at Interlaken in Switzerland. Out of his contact with Pestalozzi came a book on Pestalozzi's educational theories, much of which rubbed off onto Herbart. The book is Pestalozzi's Idee Eines ABC Der Anschaung Untersucht Und Wissenschaftlich Asugefuhrt (Pestalozzi's idea of an ABC of sense impression). This book has been translated and we reproduce a copy of the title page of the 1896 New York edition. This is not insignificant. It is a commentary by a prominent influence on today's education upon an Illuminati book.

PH.D. (Columbia), PD.D. (N.Y.U.)

Why Is The Illuminati Connection Significant?

The Illuminati was founded May 1, 1776 by Professor Adam Weishaupt of the University of Ingolstadt. It was a secret society, but in 1785 and 1787 several batches of internal documents came to the Bavarian Government. Subsequent investigation determined that the aim of the Illuminati was world domination, using any methods to advance the objective, i.e., the end always justifies the means. It was anti-Christian, although clergymen were found in the organization. Each member had a pseudonym to disguise his identity.

During its time, the Illuminati had widespread and influential membership. After suppression by the Bavarian Government in 1788 it was quiet for some years and then reportedly revived.

The significance for this study is that the methods and objectives parallel those of The Order. In fact, infiltration of the Illuminati into New England is known and will be the topic of a forthcoming volume.

So far as education is concerned, the Illuminati objective was as follows: "We must win the common people in every corner. This will be obtained chiefly by means of the schools, and by open, hearty behaviour, show, condescension, popularity and toleration of their prejudices which we shall at leisure root out and dispel."

As Rosenbaum has pointed out in his Esquire article, the Illuminati ceremony has similarities to The Order. For example, John Robison in Proofs Of A Conspiracy: [l] "The candidate is presented for reception in the character of a slave; and it is demanded of him what has brought him to this most miserable of all conditions. He answers -- Society -- the State -- Submissiveness -- False Religion. A skeleton is pointed out to him, at the feet of which are laid a Crown and a Sword. He is asked whether that is the skeleton of a King, a Nobleman or a Beggar?

-- The Slave, by Robert Mapplethorpe

As he cannot decide, the President of the meeting says to him, "the character of being a man is the only one that is of importance."

Finally, in conclusion, we can trace the foundation of three secret societies, in fact the most influential three secret societies that we know about, to Universities. The Illuminati was founded at University of Ingolstadt. The Group was founded at All Souls College, Oxford University in England, and The Order was founded at Yale University in the United States.

The paradox is that institutions supposedly devoted to the search for truth and freedom have given birth to institutions devoted to world enslavement.


1. John Robinson, PROOFS OF A CONSPIRACY (Americanist Classics, Belmont, 1967), p. 110.
Site Admin
Posts: 31701
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Postby admin » Sat Aug 01, 2015 7:33 am

Memorandum Number Four: The Leipzig Connection [1]

The link between German experimental psychology and the American educational system is through American psychologist G. Stanley Hall, in his time probably the foremost educational critic in the U.S.

The Hall family is Scotch and English and goes back to the 1630s, but Hall was not a Yale graduate, and at first sight there is no connection between Hall and The Order.

On the other hand, Hall is a good example of someone whose life has major turning points and on probing the turning points, we find The Order with its guiding hand. The detail below is important to link Hall with The Order. It is an open question how much Hall knew, if he knew anything at all, about The Order and its objectives.

After graduation from Williams College, Hall spent a year at the Union Theological Seminary, New York. Our "Addresses" books for The Order do not give church affiliations for members citing the ministry as their occupation. We do know that Rev. Henry Sloane Coffin ('97) was Associate Professor of Practical Theology at Union from 1904-1926 and President of Union Seminary from 1926 to 1945, but we cannot trace any members at Union before 1904.

Fortunately, Hall was an egocentric and wrote two long, tedious autobiographies: Recreations Of A Psychologist and Life And Confessions Of A Psychologist. This is how Hall described his entry to Union in the latter book (pp. 177-8):

"Recovering from a severe attack of typhoid fever the summer after graduation and still being very uncertain as to what I would be and do in the world, I entered Union Theological Seminary in September 1867."

Later Hall adds,

"The man to whom I owe far more in this group than any other was Henry B. Smith, a foreign trained scholar, versed more or less not only in systematic theology, which was his chair, but in ancient and modern philosophy, on which he gave us a few lectures outside the course. Of him alone I saw something socially. He did me perhaps the greatest intellectual service one man can render another by suggesting just the right reading at the right time. It was he, too, who seeing my bent advised me to go to Europe."

The Rev. Henry Boynton Smith cited by Hall was Professor of Church History at Union Seminary from 1850 to 1874, and in the "liberal" wing of the Presbyterian Church, he edited Theological Review from 1859-1874 and translated several German theological works. Smith was not a member of The Order.

How did Hall, who says he was broke, get from New York to Europe, specifically to Germany?

Here's the interesting twist. Someone he didn't know (but whom today we can trace to The Order) gave him $1,000 -- a lot of money in those days. Here's how it happened. While preaching in Pennsylvania in 1868, Hall received a letter from Rev. Henry Ward Beecher, whose church he attended in New York:

"... asking me to call on him. I immediately took the train and Beecher told me that through the Manns (friends) he had learned that I wished to study philosophy in Germany but lacked the means ... (he) gave me a sealed note to the lumber magnate Henry Sage, the benefactor of Cornell, which I presented at his office without knowing its contents. To my amazement, after some scowling and a remark to the effect that his pastor took amazing liberties with his purse, he gave me a check for one thousand dollars. Taking my note to repay it with interest, he told me to sail for Germany the next day" (Confessions, p. 182).

Who was "lumber magnate Henry Sage, the benefactor of Cornell"?

The Sage family had several "Henrys" involved with Yale and Cornell Universities in those days. The "Henry Sage" cited is probably William Henry Sage (1844-1924) who graduated Yale 1865 and then joined the family lumber company, H.W. Sage & Company in New York. Henry Sage was a member of Scroll & Key the sister Senior Society to Skull & Bones at Yale. Furthermore, two of Henry Sage's nephews were in The Order, but well after 1868:

• Dean Sage ('97)
• Henry Manning Sage ('90)

Both Sages entered the family lumber business, by then renamed Sage Land & Lumber.

In brief: the funds to get Hall to Germany on his first trip came from a member of Scroll & Key, i.e., Henry Sage, while Sage's two nephews joined The Order later in the century.

In Germany, Hall studied philosophy at the University of Berlin for two years under Hegelians Trendelenberg (Gilman of The Order also studied under Trendelenberg) and Lepsius. There were few American students in Berlin at this time. So few that the American Minister George Bancroft could entertain them at the U.S. Embassy to meet German Chancellor von Bismarck.

Hall At Antioch College

Hall returned to the U.S. from Germany in 1871 and by design or accident found himself under the wing of The Order.

Again, the detail is important. There are two versions of Hall's life immediately after returning from his first trip to Germany. According to Hall's Confessions, he became tutor for the Seligman banking family in New York and was then contacted by James K. Hosmer, Professor at Antioch College, Yellow Springs, Ohio. Hosmer asked, and this is very unusual, if Hall would like his professorial post at Antioch. Said Hall, "I gladly accepted."

There is another version in National Cyclopaedia Of American Biography which states, "In 1872 he (Hall) accepted a professorship at Antioch College, Ohio, that formerly was held by Horace Mann." In any event Hall went to Antioch, a "liberal" Unitarian college with a more than "liberal" view of education. And at Antioch College, G. Stanley Hall was at the core of The Order.

Horace Mann, whom we met in Memorandum Two as the promoter of "look-say" reading, was the first President of Antioch (1853-1860). The most prominent trustee of Antioch College was none other than the co-founder of The Order, Alphonso Taft. According to Hall, "(I) occasionally spent a Sunday with the Tafts. Ex-President Taft was then a boy and his father, Judge Alonzo (sic) Taft was a trustee of Antioch College" Confessions, p. 201).

Furthermore, Cincinnati, Ohio, at that time was the center for a Young Hegelian movement including famous left Hegelian August Willich, and these were well known to Judge Alphonso Taft.

The Americanization of Wilhelm Wundt
WILHELM WUNDT (University of Leipzig 1875-1920) -- Trains American Students including G. Stanley Hall
John Dewey (1904-1930)
E.L. Thorndike (1899-1942)
James E. Russell (1897-1927)
Dept. of Psychology, James McCattell (1891-1917)
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, School of Education
John Dewey (1894-1904)
Charles Judd (1909-1946)
Funded by Rockefeller Foundations General Education Board and Carnegie Foundation

In brief, while at Antioch College in Yellow Springs, Ohio, Hall came under the influence of four groups:

(a) the legend of Horace Mann, a hero of the modern education movement.

(b) the Unitarian Church, which will enter our later reports,

(c) a Hegelian discussion group comprised of left Hegelians, and

(d) the co-founder of The Order, Alphonso Taft. And Hall knew William Howard Taft, also a member of The Order ('78) and future President and Chief Justice of the United States.

Hall stayed four years at Antioch, then took off again for Europe, while Alphonso Taft went to Washington, D.C. as Secretary of War, then as Attorney General in the Grant Administration. Hall paused a while in England and then went on to Germany, to Leipzig and Wilhelm Wundt. He became the first of a dozen Americans to receive a Ph.D. in psychology (a new field) under Wundt.

The Hegelian Influence On Hall

So between 1870 and 1882, a span of twelve years, Hall spent six years in Germany. As Hall himself comments,

"I do not know of any other American student of these subjects (i.e., philosophy and psychology) who came into even the slight personal contact it was my fortune to enjoy with Hartmann and Fechner, nor of any psychologist who had the experience of attempting experimental work with Helmholtz and I think I was the first American pupil of Wundt. The twelve years included in this span, more than any other equal period, marked and gave direction to modern psychology ..." [2]

Who were these four German philosophers who so influenced Stanley Hall?

Eduard von Hartmann (1842-1906), a prominent philosopher. Hartmann's views on individual rights are entirely contrary to our own, i.e., "The principle of freedom is negative ... in every department of life, save religion alone, compulsion is necessary ... What all men need is rational tyranny, if it only holds them to a steady development, according to the laws of their own nature."

There isn't too much difference between Hegel and Hartmann on the idea of social progress. Individual freedom is not acceptable to these philosophers, man must be guided by "rational tyranny."

Gustav Theodor Fechner (1801-1887). Fechner disliked Hegel, who Fechner said, "unlearned men to think." However, Fechner was mainly interested in psycho-physics, i.e., parapsychology:

"... he was particularly attracted to the unexplored regions of the soul and so he became interested in somnambulism, attended seances when table tapping came into vogue."

Herman L. F. von Helmholtz (1821-1894) was undoubtedly Germany's greatest scientist in the 19th century and was rooted in Kant, the predecessor of Hegel.

For Helmholtz:

"The sensible world is a product of the interaction between the human organism and an unknown reality. The world of experience is determined by this interaction but the organism itself is only an object of experience and is to be understood by psychology and physiology."

Wilhelm Maximilian Wundt

Wilhelm Wundt (1832-1920), Professor of Philosophy at University of Leipzig, was undoubtedly the major influence on G. Stanley Hall. Modern education practice stems from Hegelian social theory combined with the experimental psychology of Wilhelm Wundt. Whereas Karl Marx and von Bismarck applied Hegelian theory to the political field, it was Wilhelm Wundt, influenced by Johann Herbart, who applied Hegel to education, which in turn, was picked up by Hall and John Dewey and modern educational theorists in the United States.

Wilhelm Maximilian Wundt was born August 16, 1832 at Neckarau, a suburb of Mannheim, Germany. His father Maximilian (1787-1846) was a minister. Wundt's grandfather on the paternal side is of significant interest: Kirchenrat Karl Kasimir Wundt (1744-84) was Professor at Heidelberg University in the history and geography of Baden and pastor of the church at Wieblingen, a small neighborhood town.

The Illuminati-Order documents show that "Raphael" in the IIluminati is identified as this same Professor Karl Kasimir Wundt and is referred to in the Illuminati Provincial Report from Utica (i.e., Heidelberg) dated September 1782. [3]

The magnum opus of Wilhelm Wundt, i.e., Volkerpsychologie, is also today a recommended book in Internationales Freimaurer Lexikon (page 50).

Historical links aside, Wundt is important in the history of American education for the following reasons:

(1) He established in 1875 the world's first laboratory in experimental psychology to measure individual responses to stimuli.

(2) Wundt believed that man is only the summation of his experience, i.e., the stimuli that bear upon him. It follows from this that, for Wundt, man has no self will, no self determination. Man is in effect only the captive of his experiences, a pawn needing guidance.

(3) Students from Europe and the United States came to Leipzig to learn from Wundt the new science of experimental psychology. These students returned to their homelands to found schools of education or departments of psychology, and trained hundreds of Ph.D.s in the new field of psychology.

The core of our problem is that Wundt's work was based on Hegelian philosophical theory and reflected the Hegelian view of the individual as a valueless cog in the State, a view expanded by Wundt to include man as nothing more than an animal influenced solely by daily experiences.

This Wundtian view of the world was brought back from Leipzig to the United States by G. Stanley Hall and other Americans and went through what is known among psychologists as "The Americanization of Wundt."

Although Hall was primarily psychologist and teacher, his political views were partially Marxist, as Hall himself writes: "... (I) had wrestled with Karl Marx and half accepted what I understood of him" (Confessions, p. 222).

In the next Memorandum, Number Five, we will link Hall with Gilman and trace their joint influence on American education.


1. The Leipzig Connection is the title of an excellent little booklet by Lance J. Klass and Paoli Lionni, published by The Delphian Press. Route 2, Box 195, Sheridan, Oregon 97378 ($4.00 postpaid). The book came out in 1967 and was the first to trace the Wundt link. It has more detail on Wundt than this memorandum, but, of course, is not concerned with The Order.

2. G. Stanley Hall. FOUNDERS OF MODERN PSYCHOLOGY. Appleton & Co., London, 1912, pp. v-vi.

3. Richard van Dulman, Der Geheimbund Der Illuminaten (Stuttgart, 1977, p. 269).
Site Admin
Posts: 31701
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Postby admin » Sat Aug 01, 2015 8:18 pm

Memorandum Number Five: The Baltimore Scheme

While G. Stanley Hall was in Leipzig working under Wilhelm Wundt, the revolutionary trio Gilman-Dwight-White were moving events back home -- and The Order ran into its first organized opposition.

The protesting "neutrals" at Yale had no hope of winning. Even under independent President Noah Porter in the 1870s, The Order had Yale University under its control. But while Yale students were watching, protesting and writing bad verse, Daniel Gilman ran into opposition 3000 miles away -- and if the leaders of this counter revolution had known the story we are recounting here, they might just have stopped The Order dead in its tracks.

In 1867 Daniel Gilman received an offer as President of the University of Wisconsin. This he declined. In 1872 Gilman was offered the Presidency of the newly established University of California. This offer he accepted.

In California Gilman found a political hornets' nest. For some years there had been increasing popular concern about the railroad monopolies, government subsidies to railroads and -- oddly enough the Morrill Bill which gave federal land grants to agricultural and scientific colleges. The reader will recall that in Connecticut and New York, The Order had grabbed the total state's share for Yale and Cornell respectively. Californians believed that the University of California, a land grant college, should teach agriculture and science, whereas Gilman had different ideas. Unrest over corruption, including corruption among University of California Regents and the railroads (in which members of The Order had widespread interests), led to formation of a new California political party.

In 1873 the party was known as the Patrons of Husbandry or the Grangers. Then members of the Republican Party broke away and joined with the Grangers to form the Peoples Independent Party (known also as the Dolly Varden Party). They won a decisive victory in the 1873 California elections and following investigations by the Grangers, a petition was sent to the Legislature concerning operation of the University of California under Daniel Gilman.

At that time Henry George was editor of the San Francisco Daily Evening Post and George used his considerable journalistic skills to attack the University, the Regents, Gilman, and the land grants. Although Henry George is known as a socialist, we classify him as an independent socialist, not part of the Hegelian right-left spectrum. His main target was land monopoly, whereas the "scientific" Hegelian socialism of Karl Marx is geared to establishing monopolies of all kinds under state control, following the Hegelian theory of the supremacy of the State.

This populist furor scared Gilman, as he freely admits:

"... there are dangers here which I could not foresee ... This year the dangers have been averted but who can tell what will happen two years hence"? I feel that we are building a superior structure but it rests over a powder mill which may blow it up any day. All these conditions fill me with perplexity."

Reading between the lines, Daniel Gilman was not too anxious to face the populist west. He needed a more stable base where prying journalists and independent politicians could be headed off. And this base presented itself in the "Baltimore scheme."

Daniel Gilman Becomes President Of Johns Hopkins

Johns Hopkins, a wealthy Baltimore merchant, left his fortune to establish a University for graduate education (the first in the United States along German lines) and a medical school.

Hopkins' trustees were all friends who lived in Baltimore. How then did they come to select Daniel Coit Gilman as President of the new University?

In 1874 the trustees invited three university presidents to come to Baltimore and advise on the choice of a President. These were Charles W. Eliot of Harvard, Andrew Dickson White of Cornell, and James B. Angell of Michigan. Only Andrew Dickson White was in The Order. After meeting independently with each of these presidents, half a dozen of the trustees toured several American Universities in search of further information -- and Andrew D. White accompanied the tour. The result was, in the words of James Angell:

"And now I have this remarkable statement to make to you, that without the least conference between us three, we all wrote letters telling them that the one man was Daniel C. Gilman of California," [1]

The truth is that Gilman not only knew what was going on in Baltimore, but was in communication with Andrew White on the "Baltimore scheme," as they called it.

In a letter dated April 5, 1874, Gilman wrote as follows to Andrew D. White:

"I could not conclude on any new proposition without conferring upon it with some of my family friends, and I have not felt at liberty to do so. I confess that the Baltimore (italics in original) scheme has often suggested itself to me, but I have no personal relations in that quarter." [2]

Here's the interesting point: the board appointed by Johns Hopkins to found a university did not even meet to adopt its bylaws and appoint committees until four weeks before this letter i.e., March 7, 1874. Yet Gilman tells us "the Baltimore scheme has of times suggested itself to me ..."

In brief: Gilman knew what was happening over in Baltimore BEFORE HIS NAME HAD BEEN PRESENTED TO THE TRUSTEES!

Gilman became first President of Johns Hopkins University and quickly set to work.

Johns Hopkins had willed substantial amounts for both a University and a medical school. Dr. William H. Welch ('70), a fellow member of The Order, was brought in by Gilman to head up the Hopkins medical school. (Welch was President of the Board of Directors of the Rockefeller Institute of Medical Research for almost 25 years, 1910-1934. This we shall expand upon later in the series when we examine how The Order came to control medicine). For the moment let's return to G. Stanley Hall who was in Leipzig while Johns Hopkins was acquiring its new President.

Gilman Starts The Revolution in American Education

When he returned to the United States Hall was feeling pretty low:

"I came home, again in the depths because of debt and with no prospects, took a small flat on the edge of Somerville, where my two children were born, and waited, hoped and worked. One Wednesday morning President Eliot (of Harvard University) rode up to the house, rapped on the door without dismounting from his horse and asked me to begin Saturday of that week a course of lectures on education ..."

As Hall recounts it, he had a "very impressive audience" for these lectures. Sometime later,

"In 1881 I was surprised and delighted to receive an invitation from the Johns Hopkins University, then the cynosure of all aspiring young professors, to deliver a course of twelve semi-public lectures on psychology."

At the end of the lecture series, Gilman offered Hall the chair of Professor of Psychology and Pedagogy. This puzzled Hall because others at Johns Hopkins were "older and abler" than himself and

"Why the appointment for which all of them had been considered fell to me I was never able to understand unless it was because my standpoint was thought to be a little more accordant with the ideals which then prevailed there."

Hall was given a psychological laboratory, a thousand dollars a year for equipment and, with the encouragement of Gilman, founded The American Journal Of Psychology.

And what did Hall teach? Again in his own words:

"The psychology I taught was almost entirely experimental and covered for the most part the material that Wundt had set forth in the later and larger edition of Physiological Psychology."

The rest is known. The chart demonstrates how doctoral students from Wundt and Hall fanned out through the United States, established departments of psychology and education by the score; 117 psychological laboratories just in the period up to 1930. Prominent among these students were John Dewey, J.M. Cattell and E.L. Thorndike -- all part of the founding of Columbia Teachers' College and Chicago's School of Education -- the two sources of modern American education.

Their activities can be measured by the number of doctorates in educational psychology and experimental psychology granted in the period up to 1948. The following list includes psychologists with training in Germany under Wilhelm Wundt before 1900, and the number of doctorates they in turn awarded up to 1948:

American Students of Wundt Teaching at U.S. Universities / Career At / Number of Doctorates They Awarded up to 1948
G. Stanley Hall: Johns Hopkins and Clark University: 149 doctorates
J. McKeen Cattell: Columbia University: 344 doctorates
E. W. Scripture: Yale University: 138 doctorates
E.B. Titchener: Cornell University: 112 doctorates
H. Gale: Minnesota University: 123 doctorates
G.T.W. Patrick: Iowa University: 269 doctorates
C.H. Judd: University of Chicago: 196 doctorates

Of these only E.B. Titchener at Cornell could be called a critic of the Wundt school of experimental psychology. The rest followed the party line: an amalgamation of Hegelian philosophy and Wundtian animal psychology.

So from the seed sown by Daniel Coit Gilman at Johns Hopkins grew the vast network of interlocking schools of education and departments of psychology that dominates education today.


1. John C. French. A HISTORY OF "I HE UNIVERSITY FOUNDED BY JOHNS HOPKINS (The Johns Hopkins Press. Baltimore. 1946), p. 26.

Site Admin
Posts: 31701
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Postby admin » Sat Aug 01, 2015 8:28 pm

Memorandum Number Six: The Troika Spreads Its Wings

Around the turn of the century The Order had made significant penetration into the educational establishment. By utilizing the power of members in strategic positions they were able to select, groom and position non-members with similar philosophy and activist traits.

In 1886 Timothy Dwight (The Order) had taken over from the last of Yale's clerical Presidents, Noah Porter. Never again was Yale to get too far from The Order. Dwight was followed by member Arthur T. Hadley ('76). Andrew Dickson White was secure as President of Cornell and alternated as U.S. Ambassador to Germany. While in Berlin, White acted as recruiting agent for The Order. Not only G. Stanley Hall came into his net, but also Richard T. Ely, founder of the American Economic Association. Daniel Gilman, as we noted in the last memorandum, was President of Johns Hopkins and used that base to introduce Wundtian psychology into U.S. education. After retirement from Johns Hopkins, Gilman became the first President of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, D.C.

The chart overleaf summarizes the achievements of this remarkable troika.

Achievements of the Troika

1856 Founded Russell Trust (The Order)
Yale -- Librarian
President University of California
President Johns Hopkins University
President Carnegie Institution

Incorporated 1856

Andrew D. White
1854 University of Berlin
1867 President Cornell University
1894 U.S. Ambassador Berlin

Timothy Dwight
1856 University of Berlin
1858 Yale Theological Seminary
1886 President Yale College

Now let's see how The Order moved into more specialized fields of education, then we need to examine how The Order fits with John Dewey, the source of modern American educational philosophy, then how The Order spread Dewey throughout the system.

Founding Of The American Economic Association

Academic associations are a means of conditioning or even policing academics. Although academics are great at talking about academic freedom, they are peculiarly susceptible to peer group pressures. And if an academic fails to get the word through his peer group, there is always the threat of not getting tenure. In other words, what is taught at University levels is passed through a sieve. The sieve is faculty conformity. In this century when faculties are larger, conformity cannot be imposed by a President. It is handled equally well through faculty tenure committees and publications committees of academic associations.

We have already noted that member Andrew Dickson White founded and was first President of the American Historical Association and therefore was able to influence the constitution and direction of the AHA. This has generated an official history and ensured that existence of The Order is never even whispered in history books, let alone school texts.

An economic association is also of significance because it conditions how people who are not economists think about the relative merits of free enterprise and state planning. State economic planning is an essential part of State political control. Laissez faire in economics is the equivalent of individualism in politics. And just as you will never find any plaudits for the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution in official history, neither will you find any plaudits for individual free enterprise.

The collectivist nature of present day college faculties in economics has been generated by the American Economic Association under influence of The Order. There are very few outspoken preachers of the Austrian School of Economics on American campuses today. They have been effectively weeded out. Even Ludwig von Mises, undisputed leader of the school, was unable to find a teaching post in the United States. So much for academic freedom in economics. And it speaks harshly for the pervasive, deadening, dictatorial hand of the American Economics Association. And the controlling hand, as in the American Psychological Association and the American Historical Association, traces back to The Order.

The principal founder and first Secretary of the American Economic Association was Richard T. Ely. Who was Ely?

Ely descended from Richard Ely of Plymouth, England who settled at Lyme, Connecticut in 1660. On his grandmother's side (and you have heard this before for members of The Order) Ely descended from the daughter of Rev. Thomas Hooker, founder of Hartford, Connecticut. On the paternal side, Ely descended from Elder William Brewster of Plymouth Colony.

Ely's first degree was from Dartmouth College. In 1876 he went to University of Heidelberg and received a Ph.D. in 1879. Ely then returned to the United States, but as we shall describe below, had already come to the notice of The Order.

When Ely arrived home, Daniel Gilman invited Ely to take the Chair of Political Economy at Johns Hopkins. Ely accepted at about the same time Gilman appointed G. Stanley Hall to the Chair of Philosophy and Pedagogy and William Welch, a member of The Order we have yet to describe, to be Dean of the Johns Hopkins medical school.

Fortunately, Richard Ely was an egocentric and left an autobiography, Ground Under Our Feet, which he dedicated to none other than Daniel Coit Gilman (see illustration). Then on page 54 of this autobiography is the caption "I find an invaluable friend in Andrew D. White." And in Ely's first book, French And German Socialism, we find the following:

"The publication of this volume is due to the friendly counsel of the Honorable Andrew D. White, President of Cornell University, a gentleman tireless in his efforts to encourage young men and alive to every opportunity to speak fitting words of hope and cheer. Like many of the younger scholars of our country, I am indebted to him more than I can say."

Ely also comments that he never could understand why he always received a welcome from the U.S. Embassy in Berlin, in fact from the Ambassador himself. But the reader has probably guessed what Ely didn't know -- White was The Order's recruiter in Berlin.

Ely recalls his conversations with White, and makes a revealing comment: "I was interested in his psychology and the way he worked cleverly with Ezra Cornell and Mr. Sage, a benefactor and one of the trustees of Cornell University." The reader will remember it was Henry Sage who provided the first funds for G. Stanley Hall to study in Germany.

Then Ely says, "The only explanation I can give for his special interest in me was the new ideas I had in relation to economics." And what were these new ideas? Ely rejected classical liberal economics, including free trade, and noted that free trade was "particularly obnoxious to the German school of thought by which I was so strongly impressed." In other words, just as G. Stanley Hall had adopted Hegelianism in psychology from Wundt, Ely adopted Hegelian ideas from his prime teacher Karl Knies at University of Heidelberg.

First President of Johns Hopkins University, creative genius in the field of education; wise, inspiring and courageous chief under whom I had the good fortune to begin my career and to whom I owe an inestimable debt of gratitude, I dedicate this book.

And both Americans had come to the watchful attention of The Order. The staff of the U.S. Embassy in Berlin never did appreciate why a young American student, not attached to the Embassy, was hired by Ambassador White to make a study of the Berlin City Government. That was Ely's test, and he passed it with flying colors. As he says, "It was this report which served to get me started on my way and later helped me get a teaching post at the Johns Hopkins."

The rest is history. Daniel Coit Gilman invited Richard Ely to Johns Hopkins University. From there Ely went on to head the department of economics at University of Wisconsin. Through the ability to influence choice of one's successor, Wisconsin has been a center of statist economics down to the present day.

Before we leave Richard Ely we should note that financing for projects at University of Wisconsin came directly from The Order -- from member George B. Cortelyou ('13), President of New York Life Insurance Company.

Ely also tells us about his students, and was especially enthralled by Woodrow Wilson: "We knew we had in Wilson an unusual man. There could be no question that he had a brilliant future."

And for those readers who are wondering if Colonel Edward Mandell House, Woodrow Wilson's mysterious confidant, is going to enter the story, the answer is Yes! He does, but not yet.

The clue is that young Edward Mandell House went to school at Hopkins Grammar School, New Haven, Connecticut. House knew The Order from school days. In fact one of House's closest classmates at Hopkins Grammar School was member Arthur Twining Hadley ('76), who went on to become President of Yale University (1899 to 1921). And it was Theodore Roosevelt who surfaced Hadley's hidden philosophy: "Years later Theodore Roosevelt would term Arthur Hadley his fellow anarchist and say that if their true views were known, they would be so misunderstood that they would both lose their jobs as President of the United States and President of Yale." [1]

House's novel, Philip Dru, was written in New Haven, Connecticut and in those days House was closer to the Taft segment of The Order than Woodrow Wilson. In fact House, as we shall see later, was The Order's messenger boy. House was also something of a joker because part of the story of The Order is encoded within Philip Dru!

We are not sure if The Order knows about House's little prank. It's just like House to try to slip one over on the holders of power.

American Medical Association

Your doctor knows nothing about nutrition? Ask him confidentially and he'll probably confess he had only one course in nutrition. And there's a reason.

Back in the late 19th century American medicine was in a deplorable state. To the credit of the Rockefeller General Education Board and the Institute for Medical Research, funds were made available to staff teaching hospitals and to eradicate some pretty horrible diseases. On the other hand, a chemical-based medicine was introduced and the medical profession cut its ties with naturopathy. Cancer statistics tell you the rest.

For the moment we want only to note that the impetus for reorganizing medical education in the United States came from John D. Rockefeller, but the funds were channeled through a single member of The Order.

Briefly, the story is this. One day in 1912 Frederick T. Gates of Rockefeller Foundation had lunch with Abraham Flexner of Carnegie Institution. Said Gates to Flexner: "What would you do if you had one million dollars with which to make a start in reorganizing medical education in the United States?" [2]

As reported by Fosdick, this is what happened:

"The bluntness was characteristic of Mr. Gates, but the question about the million dollars was hardly in accord with his usual indirect and cautious approach to the spending of money. Flexner's reply, however, to the effect that any funds -- a million dollars or otherwise -- could most profitably be spent in developing the Johns Hopkins Medical School, struck a responsive chord in Gates who was already a close friend and devoted admirer of Dr. William H. Welch, the dean of the institution."

Welch was President of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research from 1901, and a Trustee of the Carnegie Institution from 1906.

William H. Welch was also a member of the Order and had been brought to Johns Hopkins University by Daniel Coit Gilman.

Other Areas Of Education

We should note in conclusion other educational areas where The Order had its influence. In theology we have already noted that The Order controlled Union Theological Seminary for many years, and was strong within the Yale School of Divinity.

The constitution for UNESCO was written largely by The Order, i.e., member Archibald MacLeish. And member William Chauvenet (1840) was "largely responsible for establishing the U.S. Naval Academy on a firm scientific basis." Chauvenet was director of the Observatory, U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis from 1845 to 1859 and then went on to become Chancellor of Washington University (1869).

Finally, a point on methodology. The reader will remember from Memorandum One (Volume One) that we argued the most "general" solution to a problem in science is the most acceptable solution. In brief, a useful hypothesis is one that explains the most events. Pause a minute and reflect. We are not developing a theory that includes numerous superficially unconnected events. For example, the founding of Johns Hopkins University, the introduction of Wundtian educational methodology, a psychologist G. Stanley Hall, an economist Richard T. Ely, a politician Woodrow Wilson -- and now we have included such disparate events as Colonel Edward House and the U.S. Naval Observatory. The Order links to them all ... and several hundred or thousand other events yet to be unfolded.

In research when a theory begins to find support of this pervasive nature it suggests the work is on the right track.

So let's interpose another principle of scientific methodology. How do we finally know that our hypothesis is valid? If our hypothesis is correct, then we should be able to predict not only future conduct of The Order but also events where we have yet to conduct research. This is still to come. However, the curious reader may wish to try it out. Select a major historical event and search for the guiding hand of The Order.

Members Of The Order In Education
(For Yale University see list at end of Memorandum Number One)

Name / Date Initiated / Affiliations
BURTT, Edwin A.: 1915: Professor of Philosophy, University of Chicago (1924-1931) and Cornell University (1931-1960)
ALEXANDER, Eben: 1873: Professor of Greek and Minister to Greece (1893-97)
BLAKE, Eli Whitney: 1857: Professor of Physics, Cornell (18681870) and Brown University (1870-95)
CAPRON, Samuel M.: 1853: Not known
CHAUVENET, William: 1840: U.S. Naval Academy (1845-59) and Chancellor Washington University (1862-9)
COLTON, Henry M.: 1848: Not known
COOKE, Francis J.: 1933: New England Conservatory of Music
COOPER, Jacob: 1852: Professor of Greek, Center College (1855-1866), Rutgers University (1866-1904)
CUSHING, William: 1872: Not known
CUSHMAN, Isaac LaFayette 1845 Not known
CUTLER, Carroll : 1854: President, Western Reserve University (1871-1886)
DALY, Frederick J.: 1911: Not known
DANIELS, Joseph L.: 1860: Professor of Greek, Olivert College, and President (1865-1904)
EMERSON, Joseph: 1841: Professor of Greek, Beloit College (1848-1888)
EMERSON, Samuel: 1848: Not known
ESTILL, Joe G.: 1891: Connecticut State Legislature (1932-1936)
EVANS, Evan W.: 1851: Professor of Mathematics, Cornell University (1868-1872)
EWELL, John L.: 1865: Professor of Church History, Howard University (1891-1910)
FEW SMITH, W.: 1844 : Not known
FISHER. Irving: 1888: Professor of Political Economy, Yale (1893-1935)
FISK, F.W.: 1849: President, Chicago Theological Seminary (1887-1900)
GREEN, James Payne: 1857: Professor of Greek, Jefferson College (1857-59)
GRIGGS, John C.: 1889: Vassar College (1897-1927)
GROVER, Thomas W.: 1874: Not known
HALL, Edward T.: 1941: St. Mark's School Southborough, Mass.
HARMAN, Archer: 1913: St. Paul's School, Concord, N.H.
HARMAN, Archer, Jr.: 1945: St. Paul's School, Concord. N.H.
HEBARD, Daniel: 1860: Not known
HINCKS, John H.: 1872: Professor of History, Atlanta University (1849-1894)
HINE, Charles D.: 1871: Secretary, Connecticut State Board of Education (1883-1920)
H0LLISTER, Arthur N.: 1858: Not known
HOPKINS, John M.: 1900: Not known
HOXTON. Archibald R.: 1939: Episcopal High School
HOYT, Joseph G.: 1840: Chancellor, Washington University (1858-1862)
IVES, Chauncey B.: 1928: Adirondack-Florida School
JOHNSON, Charles F.: 1855: Professor of Mathematics, U.S. Naval Academy (1865-1870). Trinity College (1884-1906)
JOHNSTON, Henry Phelps: 1862: Professor of History, N.Y. City College (1883-1916)
JOHNSTON, William: 1852: Professor of English Literature, Washington & Lee (1867-1877) and Louisiana State University (1883-1889)
JONES, Theodore S.: 1933: Institute of Contemporary Art
JUDSON, Isaac N.: 1873: Not known
KELLOGG, Fred W.: 1883: Not known
KIMBALL, John: 1858: Not known
KINGSBURY, Howard T.: 1926: Westminster School
KINNE, William: 1948: Not known
KNAPP, John M.: 1936: Princeton University
KNOX, Hugh: 1907: Not known
LEARNED, Dwight Whitney: 1870: Professor of Church History, Doshiba College, Japan (1876-1928)
McCLINTOCK, Norman: 1891: Professor of Zoology, University of Pitts burgh (1925-30), Rutgers (1932-6)
MACLEISH, Archibald: 1915 : Library of Congress (1939-1944), UNESCO, State Dept., OWI, Howard University
MACLEISH, William H.: 1950: Not known
MACLELLAN, George B.: 1858: Not known
MOORE, Eliakim H.: 1883: Professor of Mathematics, University of Chicago (1892-1931)
MORSE, Sidney N.: 1890: Not known
NICHOLS, Alfred B.: 1880: Professor of German, Simmons College (1903-1911)
NORTON, William B.: 1925: Professor of History, Boston Univ.
OWEN, Edward T.: 1872: Professor of French, University of Wiscon sin (1879-1931)
PARSONS, Henry Mcl: 1933: Columbia University
PERRY, David B.: 1863: President, Douana College (1881-1912)
PINCKARD, Thomas C.: 1848: Not known
POMEROY, John: 1887: Professor of Law, University of Illinois (1910-1924)
POTWIN, Lemuel S.: 1854: Professor, Western Reserve University (1871-1906)
REED, Harry L.: 1889: President, Auburn Theological Seminary (1926-1939)
RICHARDSON, Rufus B.: 1869: Director of American School of Classical Studies, Athens (1893-1903)
RUSSELL, William H.: 1833: Collegiate School, Hartford
SEELY, Wm. W.: 1862: Dean, Medical Faculty, University of Cincinnati (1881-1900)
SHIRLEY, A.: 1869: Not known
SOUTHWORTH, George CS: 1863: Bexley Theological Seminary (1888-1900)
SPRING, Andrew J.: 1855: Not known
STAGG, Amos A.: 1888: Director Physical Education, University of Chicago
STILLMAN, George S.: 1935: St. Paul's School
SUTHERLAND, Richard O.: 1931: Not known
THACHER, William L.: 1887: Not known
TIGHE, Lawrence G.: 1916: Treasurer of Yale
TWICHELL, Charles P.: 1945: St. Louis Country Day School
TYLER, Charles M.: 1855: Professor of History, Cornell University (1891-1903)
TYLER, Moses Coit: 1857: Professor at Cornell (1867-1900)
VOGT, T.D.: 1943: Not known
WALKER, Horace F.: 1889: Not known
WATKINS, Charles L.: 1908 : Director, Phillips Art School
WHITE, John R.: 1903: Not known
WHITNEY, Emerson C.: 1851: Not known
WHITNEY, Joseph E.: 1882: Not known
WILLIAMS, James W.: 1908 : Not known
WOOD, William C.: 1868: Not known
YOUNG, Benham D.: 1848: Not known
YARDLEY, Henry A.: 1855: Berkeley Divinity School (1867-1882)


1. Morris Hadley. ARTHUR TWINING HADLEY, Yale University Press. 1948, p. 33.

2. Raymond D. Fosdick. ADVENTURE IN GIVING (Harper & Row. New York. 1962), p. 154.
Site Admin
Posts: 31701
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Postby admin » Sat Aug 01, 2015 8:47 pm

Memorandum Number Seven: The Order's Objectives For Education

We can deduce The Order's objectives for education from evidence already presented and by examining the work and influence of John Dewey, the arch creator of modern educational theory.

How do we do this? We first need to examine Dewey's relationship with The Order. Then compare Dewey's philosophy with Hegel and with the philosophy and objectives of modern educational practice.

These educational objectives have not, by and large, been brought about by governmental action. In fact, if the present state of education had been brought about by legislation, it would have been challenged on the grounds of unconstitutionality.

On the contrary, the philosophy and practice of today's system has been achieved by injection of massive private funds by foundations under influence, and sometimes control, of The Order. This implementation we will describe in a future volume, How The Order Controls Foundations. In fact, the history of the implementation of Dewey's objectives is also the history of the larger foundations, i.e., Ford, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Peabody, Sloan, Slater and Twentieth Century.

How John Dewey Relates To The Order

John Dewey worked for his doctorate at Johns Hopkins University from 1882-86 under Hegelian philosopher George Sylvester Morris. Morris in turn had his doctorate from University of Berlin and studied under the same teachers as Daniel Gilman, i.e., Adolph Trendelenberg and Hermann Ulrici.

Neither Morris nor Dewey were members of The Order, but the link is clear. Gilman hired Morris, knowing full well that Hegelianism is a totally integrated body of knowledge and easy to recognize. It is as different from the British empirical school of John Stuart Mill as night and day.

John Dewey's psychology was taken from G. Stanley Hall, the first American student to receive a doctorate from Wilhelm Wundt at University of Leipzig. Gilman knew exactly what he was getting when he hired Hall. With only a dozen faculty members, all were hired personally by the President.

In brief, philosophy and psychology came to Dewey from academics hand-picked by The Order.

From Johns Hopkins Dewey went as Professor of Philosophy to University of Michigan and in 1886 published Psychology, a blend of Hegelian philosophy applied to Wundtian experimental psychology. It sold well. In 1894 Dewey went to University of Chicago and in 1902 was appointed Director of the newly founded -- with Rockefeller money -- School of Education.

The University of Chicago itself had been founded in 1890 with Rockefeller funds -- and in a future volume we will trace this through Frederick Gates (of Hartford, Connecticut), and the Pillsbury family (The Order). The University of Chicago and Columbia Teachers' College were the key training schools for modern education.

The Influence Of Dewey

Looking back at John Dewey after 80 years of his influence, he can be recognized as the pre-eminent factor in the collectivization, or Hegelianization, of American Schools.
Dewey was consistently a philosopher of social change. That's why his impact has been so deep and pervasive. And it is in the work and implementation of the ideas of John Dewey that we can find the objective of The Order.

When The Order brought G. Stanley Hall from Leipzig to Johns Hopkins University, John Dewey was already there, waiting to write his doctoral dissertation on "The Psychology of Kant." Already a Hegelian in philosophy, he acquired and adapted the experimental psychology of Wundt and Hall to his concept of education for social change. To illustrate this, here's a quote from John Dewey in My Pedagogic Creed:

"The school is primarily a social institution. Education being a social process, the school is simply that form of community life in which all those agencies are concentrated that will be most effective in bringing the child to share in the inherited resources of the race, and to use his own powers for social ends. Education, therefore, is a process of living and not a preparation for future living."

What we learn from this is that Dewey's education is not child centered but State centered, because for the Hegelian, "social ends" are always State ends.

This is where the gulf of misunderstanding between modern parents and the educational system begins. Parents believe a child goes to school to learn skills to use in the adult world, but Dewey states specifically that education is "not a preparation for future living." The Dewey educational system does not accept the role of developing a child's talents but, contrarily, only to prepare the child to function as a unit in an organic whole -- in blunt terms a cog in the wheel of an organic society. Whereas most Americans have moral values rooted in the individual, the values of the school system are rooted in the Hegelian concept of the State as the absolute. No wonder there is misunderstanding!

The Individual Child

When we compare Hegel, John Dewey, and today's educational thinkers and doers, we find an extraordinary similarity.

For Hegel the individual has no value except as he or she performs a function for society:

"The State is the absolute reality and the individual himself has objective existence, truth and morality only in his capacity as a member of the State."

John Dewey tried to brush the freedom of the individual to one side. In an article, "Democracy and Educational Administration" (School & Society, XVL, 1937, p. 457) Dewey talks about the "lost individual," and then restates Hegel in the following way: "freedom is the participation of every mature human being in formation of the values that regulate the living of men together." This is pure Hegel, i.e., man finds freedom only in obedience to the State. As one critic, Horace M. Kallen stated, John Dewey had a "blindness to the sheer individuality of individuals."

In other words, for Dewey man has no individual rights. Man exists only to serve the State. This is directly contradictory to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution with the preamble "We the people." They then go on to define the rights of the state which are always subordinate and subject to the will of "We the people."

This, of course, is why modern educationists have great difficulty in introducing the Constitution into school work. Their ideas follow Hegel and Dewey and indirectly the objectives of The Order. For example:

"An attempt should be made to redress the present overemphasis on individualism in current programs ... students need to develop a sense of community and collective identity." (Educational Leadership, May 1982, William B. Stanley, Asst. Professor, Dept. of Curriculum and Instruction, Louisiana State University).

The Purpose Of Education

What then is the purpose of education, if the individual has no rights and exists only for the State?

There was no need for Hegel to describe education, and so far as we know there is no statement purely on education in Hegel's writings. It is unnecessary. For Hegel every quality of an individual exists only at the mercy and will of the State. This approach is reflected in political systems based on Hegel whether it be Soviet Communism or Hitlerian national socialism. John Dewey follows Hegel's organic view of society. For example:

"Education consists either in the ability to use one's powers in a social direction or else in ability to share in the experience of others and thus widen the individual consciousness to that of the race" (Lectures For The First Course In Pedagogy).

This last sentence is reminiscent of the Hitlerian philosophy of race (i.e., right Hegelianism).

And today's educators reflect this approach. Here's a quote from Assemblyman John Vasconcellos of California, who also happens to be Chairman of the Joint Committee on the Master Plan for Higher Education and the Education Goals Committee for the California State Assembly -- a key post:

"It is now time for a new vision of ourselves, of man, of human nature and of human potential, and a new theory of politics and institutions premised upon that vision. What is that vision of Man? That the natural, whole, organismic human being is loving ... that man's basic thrust is towards community" (quoted in Rex Myles, Brotherhood and Darkness, p. 347).

What is this "widen(ing) the individual consciousness" (Dewey) and "thrust ... towards community" (Vasconcellos)?

Stripped of the pedantic language it is new world order, a world organic society. But there is no provision for a global organic order within the Constitution. In fact, it is illegal for any government officer or elected official to move the United States towards such an order as it would clearly be inconsistent with the Constitution. To be sure, Dewey was not a government official, but Vasconcellos has taken an oath of allegiance to the Constitution.

The popular view of a global order is probably that we had better look after our problems at home before we get involved in these esoteric ideas. Political corruption, pitifully low educational standards, and insensitive bureaucracy are probably of more concern to Americans.

It's difficult to see what the new world order has to do with education of children, but it's there in the literature. Fichte, Hegel's predecessor from whom many of his philosophical ideas originated, had a definite concept of a League of Nations (Volkerbund) and the idea of a league to enforce peace. Fichte asserted "As this federation spreads further and gradually embraces the whole earth, perpetual peace begins, the only lawful relation among states ..."

The National Education Association, the lobby for education, produced a program for the 1976 Bicentennial entitled "A Declaration Of Interdependence: Education For A Global Community."

On page 6 of this document we find:

"We are committed to the idea of Education for Global Community. You are invited to help turn the commitment into action and mobilizing world education for development of a world community."

An objective almost parallel to Hegel is in Self Knowledge And Social Action by Obadiah Silas Harris, Associate Professor of Educational Management and Development New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico:

"When community educators say that community education takes into consideration the total individual and his total environment, they mean precisely this: the field of community education includes the individual in his total psycho-physical structure and his entire ecological climate with all its ramifications -- social, political, economical, cultural, spiritual, etc. It seeks to integrate the individual within himself (sic) and within his community until the individual becomes a cosmic soul and the community the world."

And on page 84 of the same book:

"The Cosmic soul ... the whole human race is going to evolve an effective soul of its own -- the cosmic soul of the race. That is the future of human evolution. As a result of the emergence of the universal soul, there will be a great unification of the entire human race, ushering into existence a new era, a new dawn of unique world power."

This last quote sounds even more like Adolph Hitler than Assemblyman John Vasconcellos. It has the same blend of the occult, the ethnic and absolutism.

In conclusion we need only quote the Constitution, the basic body of law under which the United States is governed.

The generally held understanding of the Constitution on the relationship between the individual and the State is that the individual is Supreme, the State exists only to serve individuals and the State has no power except by express permission of the people.

This is guaranteed by Amendments IX and X of the Constitution.

Amendment IX reads,

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People."

Note, the "retained". And,

Amendment X reads,

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

In brief, the proposals of John Dewey and his followers are unconstitutional. They would never have seen the light of day in American schoolrooms unless they had been promoted by The Order with its enormous power.

Mind Blank - The Order's Objective For Education
Site Admin
Posts: 31701
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Postby admin » Sat Aug 01, 2015 8:52 pm

Memorandum Number Eight: Summary

Up to this point we have established the following:

(1) By the 1870s The Order had Yale University under its control. Every President of Yale since Timothy Dwight has either been a member of The Order or has family connections to The Order.

It also appears that some Yale graduates who are not members of The Order will act towards objectives desired by The Order. Some of these, for example Dean Acheson, we can identify as members of Scroll & Key, or with relatives in The Order. Others yet to be brought into our discussion are members of Wolf's Head (for example, Reeve Schley, who worked for the Rockefellers). Still others, for example Robert Maynard Hutchins (Fund for the Republic), are Yale graduates but not yet identified as members of any Yale senior society. It appears at this point that Ron Rosenbaum's assertion (in Esquire, 1977), that members of the Eastern Establishment who are not members of Skull & Bones will be members of either Scroll & Key or Wolf's Head is holding up.

(2) So far as education is concerned, look-say reading originated with Thomas Gallaudet and was designed for deaf mutes. The elder Gallaudet was not a member of The Order, but his two sons (Edson and Herbert Gallaudet) were initiated in 1893 and 1898. Horace Mann, a significant influence in modern educational theory and the first promoter of "look-say," was not a member. However, Mann was President of Antioch College, and the Tafts (The Order) were the most powerful trustees of Antioch.

(3) We traced John Dewey's philosophy, that education is to prepare a person to fit into society rather than develop individual talents, to Herbart who was influenced by the Swiss Pestalozzi. Personal development cannot be achieved by developing individual talents, it must take the form of preparation to serve society, according to Herbart, Dewey and Pestalozzi. Pestalozzi was a member of the Illuminati, with the code name "Alfred."

This raises new perspectives for future research, specifically whether The Order can be traced to the Illuminati.

(4) The scene shifts in the late 19th century from Yale to Johns Hopkins University. Member Daniel Coit Gilman is the first President of Johns Hopkins and he has handpicked either members of The Order (Welch) or Hegelians for the new departments. G. Stanley Hall, the first of Wilhelm Wundt's American students, began the process of Americanization of Wundt, established the first experimental psychology laboratory for education in the United States with funds from Gilman, and later started the Journal Of Psychology.

John Dewey was one of the first doctorates from Johns Hopkins (under Hall and Morris), followed by Woodrow Wilson, who was President of Princeton University before he became President of the United States.

We noted that at key turning points of G. Stanley Hall's career the guiding hand of The Order can be traced. Hall also links to another member of The Order, Alphonso Taft. We noted that Wilhelm Wundt's family had Illuminati connections.

(5) The Order was able to acquire all the Morrill Act land grant entitlements for New York and Connecticut for Cornell and Yale respectively. However, member Gilman ran into trouble as President of University of California on the question of the California land grants and corruption among the University regents. The first organized opposition to The Order came from the San Francisco Times, but editor Henry George was not fully aware of the nature of his target.

(6) The core of The Order's impact on education can be seen as a troika: Gilman at Johns Hopkins, White at Cornell (and U.S. Minister to Germany) and Dwight, followed by member Hadley, at Yale. Andrew White was first President of the American Historical Association. Richard T. Ely (not a member but aided by The Order) became a founder and first secretary of the American Economic Association. Members can also be traced into such diverse areas as the U.S. Naval Observatory and the Union Theological Seminary.

(7) John Dewey, the originator of modern educational theory, took his doctorate at Johns Hopkins under Hegelians. Dewey's work is pure Hegel in theory and practice, and is totally inconsistent with the Constitution of the U.S. and rights of the individual. A comparison of German Hegelians, John Dewey and modern educational theorists demonstrates the parallelism. Children do not go to school to develop individual talents but to be prepared as units in an organic society.

Experimental schools at University of Chicago and Columbia University fanned the "new education" throughout the United States.

In brief, The Order initiated and controlled education in this century by controlling its CONTENT. The content is at variance with the traditional view of education, which sees each child as unique and the school as a means of developing this uniqueness.

Criticism of the educational system today bypasses the fundamental philosophic aspect and focuses on omissions, i.e., that the kids can't read, write, spell or undertake simple mathematical exercise. If we look at the educational system through the eyes of The Order and its objectives, then the problems shift.

If teachers are not teaching basics, then what are they doing?

They appear to be preparing children for a political objective which also happens to be the objective of The Order. The emphasis is on global living, preparing for a global society. It is apparently of no concern to the educational establishment that children can't read, can't write, and can't do elementary mathematics ... but they are going to be ready for the Brave New World.

Summary of the Order's Influence in Education

Institution/Field/ DIRECT (Major impact only)/ INDIRECT (via a member of The Order
Yale University: Gilman/Dwight/Hadley/White: --
Cornell University: White: --
Johns Hopkins University: Gilman/Welch/White: Hall/Ely/Dewey/Wison/Morris
University of Chicago: --: Hall/Dewey + foundation financial aid (Volume III)
Columbia Teachers College: --: Hall/Dewey + foundation financial aid (Volume III)
Look-say reading: Gallaudet (Edson and Herbert): Mann/Gallaudet (Thomas)
Influence of:
Horace Mann: Taft: --
Herbart: Illuminati (Pestalozzi i.e. "Alfred"): --
Wundt: Gilman/Taft/White: --
American Historical Assoc.: White: --
American Economic Assoc.: --: Ely
Refer to membership at end of Memoranda #1 and #6 for lesser influences.
Site Admin
Posts: 31701
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Return to Political Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests