The National Review reports that the Supreme Court has "struck down President Trump’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship, finding that the order violates the 14th Amendment."
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented. Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment, but dissented in part, saying Trump’s executive order does not violate the 14th Amendment, but does violate the federal statute that codified the amendment. Kavanaugh’s perspective is that Congress could limit birthright citizenship via federal statute, but has not.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, held that it was enough that the child was born on U.S. soil to become a citizen.
“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today,” Roberts added.
Of course, that wasn't true because the members of Indian tribes were not considered citizens until a much later act of Congress.
This was a poor decision by the court. Not only does it misconstrue the law, but it contributes to a potential legitimacy crisis. Or, as Vox Day observes: "As one diehard liberal recently pointed out, the use of liberal democratic institutions to defend the indefensible and defeat the will of the people is only going to guarantee the eventual destruction of those institutions." It is something that Rod Dreher touches upon as well in his review of the film Citizen Vigilante:
... Not gonna lie, I felt dirty watching it.
But I’m glad I
did, because it is an extremely powerful movie, for one reason: it tells
forbidden but widely known truths about life in lawless Europe overrun
by migrants, and it speaks deeply — deeply — to
the sense of suppressed outrage that many ordinary Europeans feel
towards the film’s twin villains: migrant criminals and the European
establishment (law enforcement, courts, politicians) that allow them to
tyrannize innocent Europeans. The academic David Betz warns of civil war
coming to Europe if those in power don’t do something serious about
migration and the problems it causes. This movie shows you exactly what
he means.
[snip]
I have been accused by well-meaning people — people who understand
the problem — of somehow encouraging civil unrest by talking about it.
They’re wrong. In fact, the outright refusal of those in power to talk
about it, and to suppress and punish people who are trying, however
crudely, to face the truth, makes propaganda works like this inevitable.
And it also makes the fascist fantasy of the film likely to come true.
In
fact, let me make this clear: “Citizen Vigilante” is a fascist film, in
the sense that it valorizes lawless violence in service of restoring
social order and an ideal of justice. It shows exactly
why an exasperated people turn to fascism as a solution to a problem
liberal democratic governments have proven unwilling or unable to solve.
If
you don’t understand that, you will not understand the malign power of
this film. Nor will you get why it will become an underground smash, no
matter what the authorities do. “Citizen Vigilante” is also a
fulfillment of Ross Douthat’s famous prophecy from about twenty years
ago, that went something like this: “If you don’t like the Religious
Right, just wait till you see the Post-Religious Right.”
But as Peter Turchin has pointed out, based on his research of the causes of revolution and civil war, government policy reflects what the elites want, not what the people want. And it has been clear for decades that the elites want open borders and mass migration.
Turchin is not the first to hold the position that there is an elite that controls government policy. Carroll Quigley also wrote about a network of financial and banking elites who, for all intents and purposes, controlled the West. If you don't know who he is, Grokipedia has this summary (footnotes omitted):
Carroll
Quigley (November 9, 1910 – January 3, 1977) was an American historian
and longtime professor of history at Georgetown University's Edmund A.
Walsh School of Foreign Service. Born in Boston, Massachusetts, he earned his doctorate from Harvard
University and specialized in the comparative study of civilizations and
twentieth-century geopolitical developments.
Quigley gained prominence for his expansive Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time
(1966), a 1,300-page analysis tracing the shift from nineteenth-century
European hegemony to a bipolar world order dominated by the United
States and Soviet Union, with particular emphasis on the instrumental
role of Anglo-American financial and establishment networks in
orchestrating global stability through institutions like the Council on
Foreign Relations and the Bank for International Settlements. In this work, he candidly described how "the powers of financial
capitalism" pursued "a world system of financial control in private
hands" to dominate national politics and economies via central banks and
secretive agreements, a perspective drawn from his access to elite
archives that has since fueled debates on power structures despite
academic tendencies to sideline such causal admissions in favor of less
confrontational narratives.
It's been a long time since I read Tragedy and Hope. The book was a history of the modern world from about 1880 up through the mid-1960s. Not a newspaper headline history as we get in school, but the underlying forces at work--particularly economic and financial issues and decisions that the public rarely hears about.
But amongst this, we see that the extremely wealthy formed a loose network to make decisions which would then be put into action by the various entities and politicians they controlled or had influence over. A site called PhiloCrux summarizes this aspect:
According to Quigley's historical analysis, this network did not rely on brute force. Instead, it operated through the sophisticated capture and alignment of crucial societal pillars: international finance, mainstream media, prestigious academia, and government policy-making. By subtly influencing public opinion and financing strategic think tanks, this group worked tirelessly from the late 19th century onward to establish a framework for global governance.
Their overarching vision was one of international stability and peace, aiming to prevent the devastating global conflicts that had defined the early modern era. Yet, the methods they employed to achieve these utopian goals required a profound concentration of power entirely removed from the democratic process.
What makes Quigley’s historical lens so compelling is his own nuanced stance on the network. He did not fundamentally oppose their goal of a unified, peaceful world order. In fact, he largely agreed with their ultimate geopolitical aims. Where Quigley drew the line, and what he fiercely criticized in Tragedy and Hope, was their profound commitment to secrecy and democratic manipulation.
He argued that a free society cannot function if its most consequential policies are decided behind closed doors by unelected, unaccountable individuals. Understanding Quigley’s findings offers a profound paradigm shift. It provides a sobering, academically rigorous framework for analyzing modern power structures, the influence of modern think tanks, and the quiet forces that continue to shape the geopolitics of our time.
But the Morgans, Rhodes, Rockefellers, and so on, are no longer around. What replaced them? Well, this is what Google's AI had to say:
In his 1966 book Tragedy and Hope, historian Carroll Quigley described a network of elite British and American financiers, industrialists, and academics—most notably the "Round Table" movement and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Quigley posited that this Anglo-American establishment held disproportionate influence over global capitalism and 20th-century foreign policy.
Because this network was deeply tied to the power of the British Empire and post-WWII American economic dominance, it evolved rather than being overtly "replaced." Today, the functions, ideologies, and goals of Quigley's historical network are carried forward and expanded into broader globalist networks:
- The Trilateral Commission: Founded in 1973 (partly by David Rockefeller) to foster political and economic cooperation between North America, Western Europe, and Japan. It has effectively absorbed the cross-national policy-planning functions of Quigley’s historical groups.
- The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR): While the CFR was a centerpiece of Quigley's original thesis, it remains a dominant force, heavily shaping American foreign policy.
- The World Economic Forum (WEF): The preeminent annual gathering in Davos, Switzerland, which has taken over the mantle of globalized public-private partnerships, bringing together political leaders, CEOs, and intellectuals.
Expounding further:
The modern globalist network is not a single monolith, but a matrix of highly integrated institutions. Sociologists call this the global corporate-policy elite inner circle—a dense network of individuals who simultaneously hold leadership positions across corporate boards, think tanks, and advisory groups.
Instead of operating in secret, these overlapping memberships occur openly through shared leadership, career rotations, and corporate backing.
1. The Interlocking Directorate
A primary mechanism of this network is the "board interlock," where a single individual serves on the governing boards of multiple organizations.
- The CFR-Trilateral Nexus: The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Trilateral Commission share deep foundational roots; both were heavily backed by David Rockefeller. It is common for the North American Chair or Executive Committee members of the Trilateral Commission to be high-ranking, life-time members of the CFR.
- The WEF Board of Trustees: The World Economic Forum (WEF) is supervised by a Board of Trustees. This board regularly features individuals who are also CFR members, directors of major central banks, and former state officials who frequent Trilateral Commission meetings.
2. The Institutional Roles
The organizations do not compete; rather, they serve distinct, complementary functions for the exact same pool of elites:
| Organization | Primary Network Function | Membership Base |
|---|
| Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) | Policy Incubation: Drafts specific, actionable foreign and economic policy templates for the U.S. government. | Exclusively U.S. citizens; heavy concentration of diplomats, academics, and intelligence officials. |
| Trilateral Commission | Geopolitical Alignment: Harmonizes policy goals between the dominant capitalist regions (North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific). | Geographically restricted quotas; mostly business executives, central bankers, and politicians. |
| World Economic Forum (WEF) | Global Implementation: Acts as a marketing and consensus-building platform to merge public policy with private corporate interests. | Global; heavily focused on Fortune 500 CEOs, tech founders, and international heads of state. |
3. The "Revolving Door" of Governance
The network exerts influence over sovereign governments through a phenomenon known as the revolving door, where individuals cycle between private industry, elite think tanks, and public office.
- Historical Precedent: When Jimmy Carter (a Trilateral Commission member) was elected U.S. President, he appointed fellow Trilateralist Zbigniew Brzezinski as National Security Advisor and chose a cabinet dense with CFR and Trilateral members.
- Modern Continuity: Across successive U.S. presidential administrations, key positions—such as the Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, and CIA Director—are almost consistently drawn from the roster of CFR members or regular WEF attendees.
4. Corporate Sponsorship Ties
Beyond individual people, these organizations are bound together by corporate membership and funding. Major multinational banks (such as JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs), massive asset managers (like BlackRock), and tech conglomerates do not just send executives to Davos; they also fund the CFR as "Corporate Founders" and sit on the advisory councils of the Trilateral Commission. This financial backing ensures that the overarching policy agendas across all three groups remain aligned with global market interests.
More:
