Who really rules AMERICA? Several interesting answers to this question have been widely published. There are some who say it is the power cabal within the State Department; others, the Council on foreign Relations; others, the Rockefeller family and the Wall Street brokers; still others; the International Bankers; some, the "Illuminati," etc., etc.

Some of these groups are powerful indeed. But thoughtful consideration causes us to question whether a vast, wielding, complex and diverse as America could possibly be secretly "governed" by any of the above. That several of the institutions considered here are a part of the "power elite" is evident. That others combine to form power blocs is certain. But the real answer to the question, "WHO rules AMERICA?" confronts everyone who has a sound knowledge of history and contemporary affairs. It may not seem to be as romantic a judgement as some, but like all facts, it is a stubborn certainty.

 America is certainly not governed by the electorate, or, in the all-embracing sense, by the congress, or even the party in power. There is continuity to the real power elite which survives changes in administration and which influences nearly all-political figures. This power elite is seldom subject to the desires of the average voter.

For one thing, the power group, which actually rules the United States, is both the result and, in part, the contributing cause of a vast universal sociological drifts, or trend, towards bigness. Perhaps such a trend is inevitable in an age of technology. It is also not without some real beneficence, of course. But this trend, is big business, big labor, big education, big foundations, big defense, big religion, and big government. Those who control these elements of American life (the Power Elite) are the rulers of America. Sometimes they are called, "the Establishment," although no one knows exactly what that word means. In this publication we attempt delineation, if not a definition, of the "Establishment."

These seven power groups, in one form or another, have ruled most nations, even in ancient times. The dreadful element of newness is that in our times the power elite has secured unique weapons to implement the move toward collectivism and centralism. Our purpose is to identify and describe these groups and their weapons so that the people may be deceived no longer.

It has been the expressed ambition of the labor unions to "take wages out of competition" and as they have largely realized their goal they have acquired a power over the whole American economy which threatens the very foundations of our economic and governmental system, not to mention individual freedoms.

There have been purely economic consequences of the relentless expansion of labor union power, for example:

When labor makes its demands so unreasonable that an American industry cannot realize a desired or necessary profit, such industry will, of course, close down, cut down, or seek foreign markets and plants and thereby avail itself of less expensive foreign labor. As employers cease to resist excessive union demands there is, of necessity, lowered output and reduces employment opportunities. When even Robert Kennedy named the Teamsters Union, "a union so powerful, that it is certainly the mightiest single organization in the United States next to the federal government itself." we realize that the power to control and manipulate America's future is in the clutches of such behemoths. AFL-CIO, with their brother and united unions, collect union dues exceeding one billion dollars annually, and own trust funds running into billions more.

The Teamsters' James Hoffa once described "collective bargaining" in these terms:

The steps government has taken to control exploitation by the unions have not scarcely altered the structure of the union power, nor have they placed any effective restraints on its rapid extension and growth. Meanwhile the history of unionism has, with the benefits it may have brought to workers, including violence, coercion, racketeering, compulsory-unionism "contracts," abuse of workers, employers and the public.

With such a history of accumulative power, it would be expected that within the ranks of labor Communism would plant its apostles. The history of the Communist subversion within the labor unions is extensive.

The total labor force in the U.S. (men and women over the age of 14 employed or seeking work) is better than 100 million. This number rises by about a million a year. About one of ever four workers is a member of some union. "Labor in the broadest sense dominates the American economy and the part of labor that is organized wields tremendous economic and political power."

With monopolies and merger-mania on every hand, the small businessman is often pushed into difficult, sometimes even impossible, squeezes. Caught between the Big Business power complexes that are mushrooming in size, and government agencies, which interfere in ever business transaction, individual companies are robbed of their ability to survive in the competitive system.

A free enterprise system, in which each person (whether representing capital, labor, or management) is rewarded in accordance with his productive contribution to society, has hitherto resulted in a policy of both competition and anti-monopolism. This premise was the basis for the passage of the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act, and the establishment of many other agencies.

Thus, as business has grown larger, government controls over it have expanded. While a certain amount of policing and umpiring is obviously necessary for any orderly economic system, government certainly should stimulate, not discourage, risktaking and initiative. Free enterprise should mean freedom from restrictive control (i.e. bureaucracy) the state, and freedom from restrictions imposed by private domination of markets (i.e. monopoly).

This era is the time of "merger-monopoly", and as the mergers multiply there is growing pressure from Washington for counteraction. The first half of 1967 broke all records for a similar period with 1,416 major business mergers consummated.

Is has even been suggested, "Some oligopolies have been the result of government and antitrust suits against monopolies."

Wealth when protected by law is called "property," and when government intervenes in economic affairs it usually alters personal rights to property and effects the assets of individuals. The contemporary choices are outlined in a Fortune Magazine insert entitled "Antitrust in an Era of Radical Change":

Another danger in this age of Big Business is the desire for and increasing practice of trade with Iron Curtain countries. There seems to be a studied indifference on the part of American business to any practice so long as it is immediately profitable.

In 1964 there was a Red trade parley called, "Business International Moscow Roundtable" to which U.S. companies sent 92 representatives. About this time David Rockefeller, president of the Chase Manhattan Bank, advocated expanded Soviet trade after returning from a private conference with Nikitia Khrushchev, while attending the Soviet-Americans Citizen conference in Leningrad.