This article is the first part of an illuminating journey into the use of the New World Order [NWO] phrase by important and influential individuals in the last 100 to 120 years. Be sure to first read my INTRODUCION and FUNDAMENTAL PHRASEOLOGY articles so you have the right background information to understand some words and references used in this article. I advise you this because the New World Order concept has different levels of meanings that need different levels of understanding. I’ve chosen to mainly focus on less well-known instances the phrase was used, or even instances that have hitherto never been published before in the alternative media. I also mainly focus on the explanations |2| and |3| of the phrase, as detailed in the two articles I just referred to. While many alternative researchers, bloggers and news outlets dogmatically highlight every mentioning of ‘new world order’ in the media, we probably all know that most of them are completely innocent and are just referring to the changing balances of power in the world, which I have dubbed explanation |1| of the NWO phrase. This is by far the most commonly used meaning in the public discourse and the written media, and also the less important one. It’s completely clear that our world is in flux and that the power-structures change all the time. And then there are freedom fighters, separatists, terrorist, non-state actors, lone wolves, rogue states, and all the other fancy expressions we are given, who daily gnaw at the feet of what we call democracy and the geopolitical stability of the liberal world order. But as some people have learned by now, there is a method to the madness and a much deeper level into this undying quest for world unity. The list below isn’t placed in some sort of order or rank; all are important in some way or the other and the only way to really understand the subject is to absorb all opinions, stances and insights on it and make it your own.
Nicholas Murray Butler
One of the first public proponents of the phrase ‘new world order’ was Nicholas Butler. He was one of the leading globalists of his time and moved among other high-rollers like Lord Astor and the Rockefellers. In the April 13th edition of the Elmira Star-Gazette in the year 1916 this statement by Butler was featured. While it’s clear for everyone that Butler wrote about the start of the Great War, it’s also not very difficult to see that he’s hinting at an esoteric deeper meaning behind his words, because this new order of things will be carried by the dawning of the new day. It’s interesting to see that even in 1916 the “birth pangs” were already used. The League Of Nations [LON] was to be their Baby. Let’s call it Babylon for now.
The German word ‘zimmern’ can be translated into English as ‘to build’, ‘to hammer on wood’ or ‘to timber’, so Mr. Zimmern was both in person as in name a big Builder. Here a quote from his book The League Of Nations And The Rule Of Law, where he wrote that the Fabian policy
had been to move towards the complete abolition of the capitalist system through a succession of stages, each following almost imperceptibly from the last. The essential matter, in tactics of this kind, is to discover where to begin at what point to insert the thin end of the persevering wedge. So far as capitalism was concerned the Fabians had found this in the municipal sphere, in what was known as ‘gas and water socialism’.In their planning for a World Order they found it in the Universal Postal Union. If the Postal Union Conference had worked successfully for the best part of two generations, why, they asked themselves, should not this type of organisation be extended over the whole field of international affairs? Here was the natural starting point for the process of what may be called ‘gas and water internationalism’. This underlying idea is openly expressed in the preamble to the Fabian draft treaty, which speaks of ‘facilitating the development of such joint action as is exemplified by the Universal Postal Union’. But when the framers of the scheme found themselves faced with the problem of how their glorified Postal Union Conference was to be organised and what work it was to be given to do, their ingenuity was sorely taxed. The Postal Union, as we noted, has succeeded in its work because that work is both indispensable to everyday modern life and wholly removed from Powerpolitics. To adapt its machinery so as to enable it to conduct international affairs as a whole involved a multitude of problems. The Fabians faced them with their customary cold audacity but the result proved somewhat elaborate. Out of the single World-Parliament of the Postal Union there came forth a ‘Council Sitting as a Whole’, a ‘Council of the Eight Great Powers’, a ‘Council for the States other than the Eight Great Powers’, a ‘Council for Europe’ and a ‘Council for America’. They are interesting chiefly as a foretaste of the discussions aroused some fifteen years later when M. Briand attempted to graft his plan for European Union on to the already existing organism of the League.
Note the interesting choice of words on the “grafting” of Mr. Briand on the “already existing organism”, which sounds very Masonic. Later in the book Zimmern wrote about the same Mr. Briand again, at the time of the actual creation of the Covenant of the League of Nations, and we learn he
was simply the living embodiment of the Covenant, giving to its letter, which one of the governments represented on the Council had violated, the living touch which, it needed if it was to be a power in international politics. At that moment the League was more than a multilateral treaty, more than a piece of machinery for the convenience of governments. It was the Charter of a new World Order.
In the book the phrase ‘world order’ is mentioned six times in the main text and one time in a footnote. Interestingly it’s written five times with small letters, meaning the common translation they use in politics; option |1| as established in my FUNDAMENTAL PHRASEOLOGY article. But the important thing is that Zimmern chose to write “World Order” two times with capital letters, hinting that there’s a difference in meaning. These two instances are the ones that I’ve just quoted. These two represent the esoteric version of the World Order, option |2| and |3|. This is the deeper meaning of the ‘Order’, which has, indeed, strong Fabian roots.
In October 1918 the New York Evening Post  told the world that in this city the coming world order they all longed so much for was widely celebrated with all kinds of religious ceremonies. John D. Rockefeller was seemingly preoccupied with the “Choosing of the Twelve”, which is an interesting concept. I presume he, just like George Washington did long before him, envisioned their world government being led by “Twelve Wise Men”.
Furthermore, the Albany Knickerbocker News told us somewhere in the year 1968 that all-American hero Nelson “Rocky” did everything within his possibilities to achieve a New World Order.
Jan Christian Smuts
The newspaper clipping on the right is from the New York Times in 1920. General Smuts, one of the Round Table knights with Lord Milner, Cecil Rhodes and others, agreed too that the League of Nations had to become the basis for the world government. So we see that never to let a good crisis go to waste is a mindset of all ages amongst the elites. The NWO term isn’t used literally in this example, but Smuts did stress that the New World for the first time would be Ordering the balance.
Anthony Eden & Cordell Hull
Some real uncanny admissions can be found in a June 1, 1941 article of the Long Island Star Journal, as pasted below in total. We read the British delegation dropped some rhetorical bombs in Washington, which in the end led the Anglo-Americans to the agreement that they had to fight to achieve a ‘new world order’ together. Eden emphasized that after the war had been won the US would have to join the supranational body and take the lead in this new order. He aligned himself completely with American Senator Cordell Hull, the famous “internationalist” statesman who admittedly campaigned his whole life for a new world order to be created. Something which later on even earned him a Nobel Peace Prize. In the article below we read that the first seeds of ‘interdependence’ were already sown and most agreed that the postwar world would be one of sharing the wealth and the burden. And the writer of the article, Charles Stewart, agreed for all readers that “Herr Hitler’s got to be eliminated” and “the Germans doubtless have got to be licked”. With the war in Europe raging big time this stance and wording seems understandable, but the article ends in quite a more improper message that shines a little light on the so-called peace-loving Americans during the first years of the war. The Washington correspondent Stewart makes it quite clear that the Allied leaders “made just a thorough job of it that they virtually invented Herr Hitler. It’s the pretty general consensus that the Versailles Treaty’s severity with the Germans furnished him”. And with an eerie resemblance to our present-day situation we read that “there are commentators who hold that, after being licked, they’d better be appeased—or else, while they’re about it, the democracies will be well advised to exterminate Germanism completely”. How very democratic.
Churchill said during a speech on December 15th, 1944, near the end of the war, that there is
no doubt that when the time comes the United States will make its own pronouncement upon these matters, bearing in mind, as it will, the practical aspects which these matters assume and also how much failure on the part of the three greatest powers to work together would damage all our hopes for the future structure of a world government which, whatever else it might fail to do, will at any rate be equipped with all powers necessary to prevent outbreak of future war. 
Bush – Thatcher – Gorbachev – Mitterand
One of the most well-known instances the phrase “new world order” was used, was of course by President George H.W. Bush right after the fall of the Soviet Union and the ending of the Cold War. In my article THE BOREDOM OF SKEPTICISM I go deeper into this particular Bush speech, but for now I’ve put up some very interesting quotes from a group talk of the four political leaders who according to their saying have ended the Cold War. It’s from the excellent book The Changing Global Order, published by the editor of the elitist New Perspectives Quarterly magazine, Nathan Gardels. The book is a great potpourri of future visions and great admissions about past events, all by influential world leaders in their professions who speak more freely than in the mainstream newspapers, where those pesky prying eyes of the common people roam free. The foreword of the book is written by Zbigniew Brezezinski, who told the world that “I wholly embrace the stunning presentation of this diversity of views in one context. Together they illuminate the world we are leaving behind and the one coming into view”.  It seems they are always looking far and wide in the hope they already see Horus Rising.
In 1995 the four leaders met and had an interesting conversation about why they ended the Cold War. Mrs. Thatcher first alleged that the most important factor in ending the feud was Ronald Reagan’s decision to go ahead with the Strategic Defense Initiative [SDI]. Gorbachev disagreed and said Russia was also into the same at that time. He argued that the most important first signs were the Russian people who wouldn’t any longer tolerate the communist model that was forced upon them decades before. Bush weighed in that they were hoping that Gorbachev would succeed and that the Russian people wouldn’t revolt. Speaking about the unification of Germany Thatcher wondered that the “unification was accomplished, really, very much without consulting the rest of Europe. We were always amazed that it happened”. According to Mitterand the unification was inevitable and none of the superpowers really could do anything about it. It was a “popular revolution” in which the German people “imposed their views on the whole world”. Gorbachev concluded that
We had ended the Cold War and said, as George Bush and I did in Malta, that we would no longer regard each other as enemies. We had come a long way in opening freedom in our country. We dismantled the totalitarian system, launched perestroika in the Soviet Union and reforms in Eastern Europe. The entire world had moved into a new stage of development.
Thatcher added that
Certainly the great event of our time has been the collapse of communism. But that is not synonymous with the coming of democracy. Democracy is more than about majority voting. You must have the rule of law and a sense of justice adjudicated by an independent judiciary or a parliament elected to make the laws.
Gorbachev replied that after having lived through the epic breakup of the Soviet Union
We should warn people against making sovereignty an absolute thing. If we just start dividing up all these countries it will be dangerous. It would only create chaos and confusion. That’s not what we ended the Cold War for. We wanted a new set of international relationships that would make it possible to address global issues. […] We should not take the big stick immediately to make order.
Mitterand concluded the conversation with the astute observation that the believed that “in the next century a new synthesis must be found between the two requirements stressed by President Gorbachev – the need for integration, as well as the need to affirm individual personality, sovereignty, and rights in different areas”.  This is a prime example of the Hegelian Dialectic at work.
Joseph S. Nye
The Rhodes Scholar, inventor of the term ‘complex interdependence’ and one of the leading thinkers in American foreign policy, Joseph S. Nye Jr., explained in the spring 1992 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine the confusion in world politics about Bush’ new world order, and hinted for the necessity of a synthesis in understanding:
“Realists, in the tradition of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, see international politics occurring among sovereign states balancing each other’s power. World order is the product of a stable distribution of power among the major states. Liberals, in the tradition of Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter, look at relations among peoples as well as states. They see order arising from broad values like democracy and human rights, as well as from international law and institutions such as the United Nations. The problem for the Bush administration was that it thought and acted like Nixon, but borrowed the rhetoric of Wilson and Carter. Both aspects of order are relevant to the current world situation, but the administration has not sorted out the relation between them. From the realist perspective there is definitely a new world order, but it did not begin with the Gulf War. Since order has little to do with justice, but a lot to do with the distribution of power among states, realists date the new world order from the collapse of the Soviet empire in eastern Europe in the autumn of 1989. The rapid decline of the Soviet Union caused the end of the old bipolar order that had persisted for nearly half a century.” 
Below we have a little book review from 1901 in the New York Times. On the right we see another review of the same book, this time from the Omaha Daily Bee newspaper. Here we see that with ‘order’ clearly a religious one is meant, this instance a Christian one. Note the “Religion of Democracy”, which was Ferguson’s preceding book, and “Americanism”. Unknown if there is a connection with Marilyn Ferguson.
The New World Order And China
In the newspaper clipping on the right we see an early public discussion of the eventual and inevitable merger of China into the World Order. It’s from the Binghamton Press, March 5th, 1960. China has of course been set up by the Western elites to be the producer for the world, and to be the first big experiment of the merger between Capitalism and Communism, hence the blueprint of the merger between East and West.
If we fast-forward to our time we see still a lot high politicians and bureaucrats argue that the relation of the West with China is of utmost importance, and that the interdependence has to grow in order to avoid future wars. In his 2009 article The Chance For A New World Order, Henry Kissinger advised the global leaders to act adequately to the possibilities the global financial crisis provided. He agreed with most opinion leaders that even
the most affluent countries will confront shrinking resources. Each will have to redefine its national priorities. An international order will emerge if a system of compatible priorities comes into being. It will fragment disastrously if the various priorities cannot be reconciled. The nadir of the existing international financial system coincides with simultaneous political crises around the globe. Never have so many transformations occurred at the same time in so many different parts of the world and been made globally accessible via instantaneous communication. The alternative to a new international order is chaos. The financial and political crises are, in fact, closely related partly because, during the period of economic exuberance, a gap had opened up between the economic and the political organization of the world. The economic world has been globalized. Its institutions have a global reach and have operated by maxims that assumed a self-regulating global market. The financial collapse exposed the mirage. It made evident the absence of global institutions to cushion the shock and to reverse the trend. Inevitably, when the affected publics turned to their national political institutions, these were driven principally by domestic politics, not considerations of world order.
This is how it’s marketed to us; the global financial collapse was inevitable, because the overarching global institutions were not fully functional yet. As with the world orders in the past first a global or at least very widespread chaos is orchestrated, to cram through the necessary laws and to soften up the public for the great changes to come. Mr. Kissinger continued by telling us that
International order will not come about either in the political or economic field until there emerge general rules toward which countries can orient themselves. In the end, the political and economic systems can be harmonized in only one of two ways: by creating an international political regulatory system with the same reach as that of the economic world; or by shrinking the economic units to a size manageable by existing political structures, which is likely to lead to a new mercantilism, perhaps of regional units. A new Bretton Woods-kind of global agreement is by far the preferable outcome. America’s role in this enterprise will be decisive. 
The World Policy Institute
Another influential but less well-known body that was especially founded to work behind the scenes towards the World Order is the World Policy Institute. Speaking about its history they tell us that when the Institute was originally founded in 1961
as the Fund for Education Concerning World Peace through World Law, it marked the next stage in a moderate internationalist movement that began in the wake of World War II. The leaders of the Institute—Grenville Clark, Harry Hollins, and C. Douglas Dillon—shared a commitment to the transformation of the international system and the belief that change must be initiated by the world’s citizens, not its governments. However, while these men shared the vision of what would ultimately become the World Policy Institute, it was the support of Earl D. Osborn and his Institute for International Order that made it possible. 
Grenville Clark, a Wall Street lawyer from the firm Root, Clark, Buckner and Ballantine and good friend of President FDR, teamed up with Louis Sohn from Harvard Law School and published their ideas on world order in the classic book World Peace Through World Law. This book was a very important pillar in the framing and expansion of inter- and intra-governmental laws and policies. Clark was “a lawyer and professor who was a leading voice among the United World Federalists. Heir to a banking and railroad fortune, he inspired and endowed what became the World Law Fund”. Clark has since been regarded with high honors among fellow-globalists, what for instance constituted in naming an important award after him. In 1975 Jean Monnet, one of the founding fathers of the European Union, received the Grenville Clark award from the hands of Henry Kissinger, who glorified Monnet by saying he
moved so many of your contemporary generations, that the generations that are now conducting policy consider your dream as valid and it is on the verge of realization as it was when first conceived. A united Europe seems to be imminent. The United States strongly supports it. The close cooperation between Europe and the United States which your life has epitomized will be built on that basis. 
In the 70’s author Paul Hoffman published a nice exposé of the Wall Street Law Firms, which until then was a quite unknown part of the financial elite, and probably still is. Hoffman wrote about Grenville Clark that he was
deeply involved in public affairs. “Publicly inconspicuous”, said the New York Times, but “privately a man of enormous influence with uncommon powers of persuasion”. Long an apostle of world government, though he held no official position, he played a major role in both World Wars. An advocate of preparedness, he organized the Plattsburgh Movement to train military men in the months before World War 1. In 1940, he helped draft the Selective Service Act and introduced FDR –once his fellow associate at Carter, Ledyard & Milburn– to recruit Henry Stimson and Robert Patterson for the War Department. 
Grenville Clark himself wrote in 1944 an article called A New World Order; The American Lawyers’ Role, in which he laid out the role of his ilk in the forging of the world order after the war. Speaking to his colleagues, he wrote that
It is we lawyers who have more opportunity than almost any other group or profession to express ourselves on this vast problem-in the legislatures, in print, on the air waves, in our own meetings and in conversation. If the lawyers of America really educate themselves on the problem of world order, so as to have mature and enlightened views, it is within reach to accomplish a result which “realists” now dismiss as impossible and for which future centuries will not cease to praise this era. But, correspondingly, if we fail to take the trouble to read deeply and think hard, or if our views are too much set in old grooves and too much controlled by old concepts of “sovereignty” and the like, the world may lose again the chance now offered to establish firmly the rule of law throughout the world. […] It is so because twenty-five years ago we miserably failed to devise an effective world organization and because the lawyers of the country shared in and partially caused that failure. It is so, also, because we cannot afford to, we must not, fail again, at least not through lack of trying to the limit of our capacity. That much, at least, we owe to our descendants. We need, above all, imagination and a creative spirit, capable of a great leap forward in the organization of a world now truly to be made one by modern invention. 
Clark then compared the forging of a world federation with the forging of the United States by the Founding Fathers, but was a bit careful on the absolute powers the governing body would be given, but it certainly had to be given some absolute powers over all nation states, because without this it would fail. Clark then takes us back to 1939, just before the outbreak of the war. He tells us that at that time he tried to educate himself
on the subject of world organization and after some months of study had the temerity to produce a plan in the shape of a proposed constitution for a Federation of Peoples. It was then that I was impressed with the farseeing wisdom of Immanuel Kant, who in 1795 laid down the principle that world peace can only be secured by a great federation of peoples armed with adequate authority. It was then also that I so clearly perceived the determining importance of the question of the precise powers to be accorded the international authority and of the related question of representation in the World Congress or Assembly. […] We can preach the truth not only that world order must be ultimately backed by force, but that this force must be promptly available. We lawyers know this to be true of the maintenance of order in a city or a nation. Is not the evidence now conclusive that it is true also in the field of world order?
Clark’s friend and co-writer Louis Sohn grew up in Poland and came to the US as an immigrant, fleeing the country because of fears for the Nazi’s. In 2007, one of his former pupils wrote about Sohn that by playing various roles at different key-moments he
became nothing less than an architect of the new world order. Just as others today aspire to be architects of cyberspace or the new global economy, Louis Sohn was present at the creation of a new vision for international law. 
The History page of the World Policy Institute tells us that from “1985 to 1987, World Policy Journal articles were translated for President Mikhail Gorbachev by the Russian Institute for US and Canada Studies. The Journal’s close contacts with Russian reformists enabled it to cover the coming of Gorbachev, glasnost and perestroika, and the unraveling of the Cold War, like no other publication. During the 1980s, the Institute’s American Priorities in a New World Era project – a group that included participants Robert Reich, Carl Sagan, Jessica Matthews, and Stan Greenberg – began studies which resulted in a series of polls and a 1990 book”. Especially interesting is the connection with Carl Sagan here. For some other unexpected connections Sagan had, see INDECENT ATMOSPHERE.
The London Guardian, right after 9/11
Most can probably agree that the events of September 11th, 2001, have constituted to a new world order; politically, socially and maybe even, totally. An anonymous article was published in the London Guardian on the 14th, right after Bush’ speech on “you’re with us, or you’re with the terrorists”. The title of the small article is Bush’s New world Order, and really gave a good overview of what was to happen and forewarned the Western world in the imperial battle they got sucked into.
This paramount, “monumental struggle” demands unswerving commitment from allies, friends and the non-aligned alike. In foreshadowing an open-ended military and diplomatic offensive, secretary of state Colin Powell plainly expects unquestioning cooperation from all countries, great and small. This blunt message to all and sundry is: now we cut the crap. You are either for us or against us. We are going to win. Back us – or you, too, will lose. These propositions demand urgent scrutiny – for despite Mr. Bush’s initial caution, here is the looming, daunting prospect of superpower unleashed, of Prometheus unbound. And America’s friends must think hard and fast about what they are getting into. […] US deserves every sympathy and should be supported in taking all reasonable measures to find and punish this week’s culprits. But international institutions, like governments, have a broader duty in the dangerous days ahead to deflect and mitigate the wilder lunges of this wounded superpower. Whether they can do so, given America’s present mood, will give us a first measure of Mr. Bush’s crusading new world. 
Nowadays the legacy of one of the most influential American presidents who ever lived, Franklin D. Roosevelt, might seem largely forgotten or obsolete, but through the Roosevelt Institute it is still an intrinsic part of the supranational or nongovernmental power-structure. Under the banner Making the Roosevelt Legacy Real, the institute tells us that they work
in the spirit of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt. They faced the most devastating economic depression ever known, a total war that spanned the globe, and the beginning of a truly new world order. So instead of leaning back on old ideas and outdated paradigms, they looked forward, pushed forward, and ultimately ushered in a new era in American politics. Today, we at the Roosevelt Institute see economic upheaval and political volatility. We know that our current system is unstable. We have big goals for fixing that. We will make generational change by engaging whole generations. We aim to change not only policy, but also what lies underneath: beliefs and culture. 
In this quote the new world order phrase is irrelevant, because on this we could all agree that option |1| is meant; the global balance of power. What follows is the really important bit. Because it now leaves the presidential couple and the mindset of World War II behind, and abruptly enters in the 21st Century, on the playground of the real NWO, option |2| and |3|. We’re again living in a time of global chaos, that we all can agree on. We also live in a time of revolution; a time of upheaval. The world is yearning for this first global revolution, or, the ‘Ultimate Revolution’, as it also has been called in the past. In many places around the world national politics is at an all-time low. The politicians seemingly can’t cope that well with the multitude of manufactured crises, so the public daily lives through their severe mismanagement. Furthermore we have seen politics and politicians all over the world getting more clownish and infantilized, sometimes even quicker than the regular masses. It’s almost as if on cue. In fact: it is.
Big problems need big ideas, and big ideas are always on stock at the NGO’s and think-tanks. And still they have big goals left at the Roosevelt Institute, just as at every other influential globalist body. Due to the incremental implementation of their big ideas and big goals, we’re now facing Big Business, Big Government, Big Data, Big Everything––whilst we ourselves feel tinier than ever…
Bonds between people are breaking, families no longer sacred, as with marriage. And now the governments and the NGO’s want to “engage whole generations”, which is an interesting formulation. It seems that as soon as people stop being engaged to each other, the road is finally clear for the powers behind the scene to engage with humanity in a true alchemical wedding. What do they really mean with “engage”? This are the common translasions:
– to occupy the attention or efforts of [a person or persons];
– to secure for aid, employment, use;
– to attract and hold fast;
– to attract or please;
– to bind, as by pledge, promise, contract, or oath;
– to bring [troops] into conflict; enter into conflict with 
At first glance the word has many meanings, but if you really think about it, it all really comes down to the same, doesn’t it? And they’re almost there, almost. And oh oh oh, how beautiful they will bring it! It will only take a very short interruption, a small operation. You won’t feel a thing, and if you take your whole family with you, there might even be a good bonus in it for you. Oh, it will be so convenient; maybe you even will be able to get it in the convenience store, or at MacDonald’s, or at an ATM or street vending machine. It will be hip, it will be trendy; it will be smart. You will be able to do things you never could, things you’ve never dreamt about. Your whole life will even literally change into a dream; a programmed dream. They will attract you, they will please you, they will hold you, they will secure you, they will occupy your attention, they will occupy your efforts, and they will achieve this all legally, because we all let it happen.  And if necessary, they might bring you into conflict too with the pitiably few dissenters that will be left; those who were smart enough not to go smart. Maybe we can now also understand the points for their ‘model for change’ on a deeper level:
– Tackling the biggest problems: we must take tomorrow’s challenges head-on
– Putting all minds to work: we need to engage everyone, from students to Nobel laureates
– Partnering for change: we work with partners, from the grasstops to the grassroots
– Pushing ideas up and out: we translate our ideas so they will have real impact
Psst, is your head still on?
The below newspaper article is from an edition of the New York Daily Sentinel in 1943: 
 Nathan Gardels – The Changing Global Order [Blackwell; 1997] / p. 89-111
 Henry A. Kissinger – Presentation of the Grenville Clark Award to Jean Monnet
[November 15, 1975. Preserved by the Gerald A. Ford Library]
 Paul Hoffman – Lions In The Street; The Inside Story Of The Great Wall Street Law Firms
[Signet; 1974] / p. 56
 – Motherboard Vice – DARPA Is Developing Implants That Can Heal Soldiers Bodies And Minds [August, 27; 2014] – New Medtronic Deep Brain Stimulation System the First to Sense and Record Brain Activity While Delivering Therapy