Although the women of the United States are confined within the narrow circle of domestic life, and their situation is, in some respects, one of extreme dependence, I have nowhere seen woman occupying a loftier position; and if I were asked... in which I have spoken of so many important things done by Americans, to what the singular prosperity and growing strength of that people ought mainly to be attributed, I should reply, To the superiority of their women.

--Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

Saturday, June 26, 2010

Meet Your Elites: Jessica Tuchman Matthews

Mrs. Matthews is the president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. She is the daughter of Pulitzer prize winning Barbara Tuchman, who was the granddaughter of Henry Morgenthau Sr., Woodrow Wilson's Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire.

Here is Jessica Matthews' official bio from the Carnegie Endowment:
Jessica Tuchman Mathews was appointed president of the Endowment in 1997. Her career includes posts in the executive and legislative branches of government, in management and research in the nonprofit arena, and in journalism.
She was a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations from 1993 to 1997 and served as director of the Council’s Washington program. While there, she published her seminal 1997 Foreign Affairs article, “Power Shift,” chosen by the editors as one of the most influential in the journal’s 75 years.
From 1982 to 1993, she was founding vice president and director of research of the World Resources Institute, an internationally known center for policy research on environmental and natural-resource management issues
She served on the editorial board of the Washington Post from 1980 to 1982, covering energy, environment, science, technology, arms control, health, and other issues. Later, she became a weekly columnist for the Washington Post, writing a column that appeared nationwide and in the International Herald Tribune.
From 1977 to 1979, she was director of the Office of Global Issues of the National Security Council, covering nuclear proliferation, conventional arms sales policy, chemical and biological warfare, and human rights. In 1993, she returned to government as deputy to the Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs.
Mathews is a director of Somalogic Inc., HanesBrands Inc., and the Union of Concerned Scientists, and a trustee of the Nuclear Threat Initiative and the International Crisis Group. She is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the American Philosophical Society. She has previously served on the boards of the Brookings Institution, Radcliffe College, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Century Foundation, the Surface Transportation Policy Project, and the Joyce Foundation, among others.
 From Wikipedia (I'm so slackin'):

Her husband is former Air Force General Charles G. Boyd, president of the public interest group Business Executives for National Security.

BTW, why is her last name Matthews if her husband's name is Boyd? Must of been a previous marriage not talked about. Hmm. Yes, I know, I'm sooo conventional.

Anyway, both her and her husband are attendees to the Bilderburg Conference, and with all that they're involved in, it shouldn't be surprising. Mrs. Matthews is also a member of the Trilateral Commission, which is a NGO that "fosters discussion of issues between the Americas, Europe, and Asia".

If you want to know what the establishment has planned for us, I suggest you read Mrs. Matthews' essay, Power Shift, written 13 years ago.  Let's just say that the sovereignty of nations is not the theme. In fact, she refers to nations as states, so I guess our 50 states are really just counties in her mind.

Well, if a picture is worth a thousand words, behold the Jessica Tuchman Matthews map:

double click to enlarge


  1. I teach international relations and stumbled across your blog. Good work, by the way. But I think I need to clarify something.

    Technically speaking, the legal and political science term for the thing that most people call a "country" is "state". States have legal recognition and a large degree of sovereignty. Nations don't. "Nations" are what political scientists call a group of people who share a sense of historic identity (related to common history, language, religion, etc.). The Kurds are a nation, but not a state. So are the Palestinians. The Kazakhs used to be nation without a state, but now they are both. There are multinational states, and nations found in multiple states. Most nations don't have their own state, although many nations include people who want a state (that's part of what we call nationalism).

    The term "state" in relation to US is a holdover to the period from the Articles of Confederation through the Civil War, when there was still some sense that what we now call states had the right to remove themselves from the Union.

    Just wanted to clarify the point. Ms. Tuchman, like many, would generally agree with the contention that the day of multiple sovereign territorial states is on its way out. Old-fashioned states, she'd argue, aren't equipped to deal with global problems, and need to be replaced with (or supplemented by)some kind of global governance (not necessarily global "government"--there can overlapping regimes and informal networks to keep it all on track).

    Perhaps, if and when those arrangements are set up, states around the world will take a role similar to "states" in the US.

    Legally, for most states we could argue it's already that way. The UN Charter is clear on the point that no member state can leave the UN. (It can be kicked out, but it's never happened.) In addition, every country is pledged to support the actions of the UN, up to and including the use of force. The loophole for the US (and the five other permanent members of the Security Council) is that it has the power to veto any action. It's not set up to be a world government, and it's never lived up to its potential (look up Article 42 some time...), but for most countries there are already serious legal limits on state sovereignty.

    1. Thank you for sharing your expertise. World Federalism, with states around the world being similarly set up as the United States in relation to a larger federal authority, would be my definition of world government. Currently, our US states have very little real authority. Just take the Texas TSA debacle as an example.

      Our military goes to war when the UN says so, which is what State Department memo 7727 said would eventually happen - they're just letting the US military keep its own uniforms to give the illusion of control.

      I believe in having government as close to you home as you possibly can, so that accountability and oversight will prevent usurpation of freedom. When you look at what these collectivists are trying to do to us all and how interconnected they are with central banks, and the large sectors of the economy, it makes one stop and reexamine your assumptions on how the world works.

      Have you read the Grand Chessboard by Brzeznski? It speaks about the informal networks you mentioned in order to gain control of the "chessboard" Eurasia.

      Thanks for stopping by and giving your perspective.


Related Posts with Thumbnails