PART 1 OF 3
The reader anxious to get into the story of The Order should go directly to Memorandum Number Two.
This section concerns methods, evidence and proof. Essential, but perhaps boring for most readers.
During the past one hundred years any theory of history or historical evidence that falls outside a pattern
established by the American Historical Association and the major foundations with their grantmaking power has been attacked or rejected - not on the basis of any evidence presented, but on the basis of the acceptability of the argument to the so-called Eastern Liberal Establishment and its official historical line.
The Official Establishment History
There is an Establishment history, an official history, which dominates history textbooks, trade publishing, the media and library shelves. The official line always assumes that events such as wars, revolutions, scandals, assassinations, are more or less random unconnected events. By definition events can NEVER be the result of a conspiracy, they can never result from premeditated planned group action. An excellent example is the Kennedy assassination when, within 9 hours of the Dallas tragedy, TV networks announced the shooting was NOT a conspiracy, regardless of the fact that a negative proposition can never be proven, and that the investigation had barely begun.
Woe betide any book or author that falls outside the official guidelines. Foundation support is not there.
Publishers get cold feet. Distribution is hit and miss, or non-existent.
Just to ensure the official line dominates, in 1946 the Rockefeller Foundation allotted $139,000 for an
official history of World War Two. This to avoid a repeat of debunking history books which embarrassed the Establishment after World War One. The reader will be interested to know that The Order we are about to investigate had great foresight, back in the 1880s, to create both the American Historical Association and the American Economic Association (most economists were then more historians than analysts) under their terms, with their people and their objectives. Andrew Dickson White was a member of The Order and the first President of the American Historical Association.
Failure of Official History
Times have changed. The weaknesses, inconsistencies and plain untruths in official history have surfaced. In the 1980s it is rare to find a thinking reader who accepts official history. Most believe it has been more or less packaged for mass consumption by naive or greedy historians. Although an historian who will stick out his neck and buck the trend is rare, some who do are victims of an even deeper game.
Conspiracy then is an accepted explanation for many events at the intelligent grass roots level, that level furthest removed from the influence of The Order. We can cite at random the Kennedy assassination where the official "lone gunman" theory was never accepted by Americans in the street; Watergate, where a "deep throat" informer and erased tapes reek of conspiracy, and Pearl Harbor, where Rear Admiral Husband E. Kimmel and Major General Walter C. Short took the rap for General George C. Marshall and President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
The revisionist historian has a double burden as well as a double task. The double burden is that research
likely to question the official historical line will not get financed. The double task is that research must be
more than usually careful and precise.
A non-official work is not going to be judged on its merits. The work will be judged on the basis of its
acceptability to a predetermined historical standard. What this standard is we shall explore later.
Hypotheses and Method
Which brings us to methodology. In this volume we will present three hypotheses. What is a hypothesis?
A hypothesis is a theory, a working theory, a start point, which has to be supported by evidence. We arrived at these three hypotheses by examining certain documents which will also be described. The official history hatchet mongers will scream that our hypotheses are now being presented as proven assertions - and whatever we write here will not stop the screams. But again, these are only hypotheses at this point, they have to be supported with evidence. They are a first step in a logical research process.
Now in scientific methodology a hypothesis can be proven. It cannot be disproven. It is up to the reader
to decide whether the evidence presented later supports, or does not support, the hypotheses. Obviously no one author, critic, or reader can decide either way until all the evidence has been presented.
We also intend to use two other principles of scientific research ignored by official establishment
Firstly, in science the simplest explanation to a problem is always the most acceptable solution. By contrast, in establishment history, a simple answer is usually criticized as "simplistic." What the critic implies is "The poor writer hasn't used all the facts," In other words, it's a cheap "putdown" without the necessity of providing an alternate answer or additional facts.
Secondly, again in science, an answer that fits the most cases, i.e., the most general answer, is also the most acceptable answer. For example, you have 12 events to explain and a theory that fits 11 of these events. That theory is more acceptable than a theory that fits only 4 or 5 of the events.
The Devil Theory of History
Using this methodology we are going to argue and present detailed precise evidence (including names,
dates and places) that the only reasonable explanation for recent history in the United States is that there
exists a conspiracy to use political power for ends which are inconsistent with the Constitution.
This is known by the official historians as the "devil theory of history," which again is a quick, cheap
device for brushing facts under the rug. However, these critics ignore, for example, the Sherman Act, i.e., the anti-trust laws where conspiracy is the basic accepted theory. If there can be a conspiracy in the market place, then why not in the political arena? Are politicians any purer than businessmen? Following the antitrust laws we know that conspiracy can only be proven in a specific manner. A similar pattern of market actions is not proof of conspiracy. Just because something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and all the ducks act similarly, does not make it a duck - or a conspiracy. Under the Sherman Act a similar pattern of prices, where all prices are the same, is not proof of conspiracy. Similarity of prices can occur in a purely competitive market. Neither is similar political action necessarily a conspiracy.
Proof of conspiracy requires specific types of evidence, i.e.,:
(a) there must be secret meetings of the participants and efforts made to conceal joint actions,
(b) those meetings must jointly agree to take a course of action,
(c) and this action must be illegal.
The Council on Foreign Relations
Widely accepted explanations of recent history based on a conspiracy theory do not present evidence that fits the above criteria. For example, the Council on Foreign Relations cannot be claimed as a conspiracy even for the period since its founding in 1921. Membership in the CFR is not a secret. Membership lists are freely available for the cost of a postage stamp. There is no proof that the entire membership conspires to commit illegal acts.
What has to be proven in any conspiracy explanation of history is that the participants have secret
groupings, and meet to plan illegal actions. Members of the CFR, when accused of being involved in a conspiracy, have protested to the contrary And by and large they are right. Most CFR members are not involved in a conspiracy and have no knowledge of any conspiracy. And some personally known to the author are about the last people on earth to get involved in an illegal conspiracy.
HOWEVER, there is a group WITHIN the Council of Foreign Relations which belongs to a secret society, sworn to secrecy, and which more or less controls the CFR. CFR meetings are used for their own purposes, i.e., to push out ideas, to weigh up people who might be useful, to use meetings as a forum for discussion. These members are in The Order. Their membership in The Order can be proven. Their meetings can be proven. Their objectives are plainly unconstitutional. And this ORDER has existed for 150 years in the United States.