The CFR, headed by David Rockefeller and
under the control of his lieutenants, is
America's "Shadow Government"
or "Invisible Government". Administrations, both
Democrat and Republican, come and go,
but as we shall see, the key appointments in
both always go to members of the
mysterious Council on Foreign Relations.
This organization, headquartered in New
York City, is composed of an elite of
approximately 1,600 of the nation's
Establishment Insiders in the fields of hight
finance, academics, politics, commerce,
the foundations, and the communications
media. The names of most of its members
are household words, but few ordinary
Americans have ever heard of this
organization. Even fewer are aware of its goals.
Despite the fact that the key moguls of
the mass media are members of the CFR,
its first fifty years of existence went
uncommented except for a single article in
Harper's, a feature in the Christian Science Monitor, and an
occasional perfunctory
announcement in the New York Times.
Such anonymity can hardly be accidental
-- especially when you realize that the
membership of the Council on Foreign
Relations includes top executives from the
New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Knight
newspaper
chain, NBC, CBS, Time, Life, Fortune,
Business Week, U.S. News & World Report,
and many others.
For several years now a handful of
conservative authors has been laboring to
expose the activities of the CFR. Until
recently these efforts, though cumulative,
could be ignored. Four years ago,
however, it began to be apparent that George
Wallace was planning to seize upon the
Council as an electoral issue.
Obviously anticipating this, two very
similar articles on the CFR appeared in the
New York Times and New York magazine. The strategy was to admit that the
Council
on Foreign Relations has long acted as
an unelected secret government of the United
States, but to maintain that it has
voluntarily withdrawn to the sidelines for reasons of
altruism.
Contrary to what the Times wanted
its readers to believe, the CFR (with Kissinger
in charge of American foreign policy)
was just reaching its zenith of power. Still, as
John Franklin Campbell put it in New
York for September 20, 1971:
Practically every lawyer, banker,
professor, general, journalist and bureaucrat who
has had any influence on the foreign
policy of the last six Presidents -- From Franklin
Roosevelt to Richard Nixon -- has spent
some time in the Harold Pratt House, a fourstory
mansion on the corner of Park Avenue and
68th Street, donated 26 years ago by
Mr. Pratt's widow (an heir to the
Standard Oil fortune) to the Council on Foreign
Relations, Inc. . .
If you can walk -- or be carried -- into
the Pratt House, it usually means that you
are a partner in an investment bank or
law firm -- with occasional "trouble-shooting"
assignments in government. You believe
in foreign aid, NATO, and a bipartisan
foreign policy. You've been pretty much
running things in this country for the last 25
years, and you know it.
Anthony Lukas, writing in the New York
Times magazine of November 21, 1971,
also admitted that the Insiders of the
Council have been responsible for our disastrous
foreign policy over the past twenty-five
years. Mr. Lukas observed:
From 1945 well into the sixties, Council
members were in the forefront of
America's globalist activism: the United
Nations organizational meeting in San
Francisco (John McCloy, Hamilton Fish
Armstrong, Joseph Johnson, Thomas
Finletter and many others); as
ambassadors to the world body (Edward Stettinius,
Henry Cabot Lodge, James Wadsworth and
all but three others); the U.S. occupation
in Germany (Lucius Clay as military
governor, McCloy again and James Conant as
High Commissioners); NATO (Finletter
again, Harland Cleveland, Charles Spofford
as U.S. delegates).
For the last three decades, American
foreign policy has remained largely in the
hands of men -- the overwhelming
majority of them Council members -- whose world
perspective was formed in World War II
and in the economic reconstructions and
military security programs that
followed. . .
The Council was their way of staying in
touch with the levels of power. . .
Liberal columnist Joseph Kraft, himself
a member of the CFR, noted in Harper's
for July of 1958 that the Council
"has been the seat of. . . basic government decisions,
has set the context for many more, and
has repeatedly served as a recruiting ground
for ranking officials." Kraft,
incidentally, called his article "School For Statesmen" --
an admission that the members of the
Council are drilled with a "Line" of strategy to
be carried out in Washington.
In New York magazine, Campbell
tells of CFR influence in World War II and in
post-war planning:
In 1939, with Rockefeller money and the
blessings of Secretary of State Cordell
Hull, the Council established planning
groups on political, economic and strategic
problems of the war, which, in 1942,
were transferred along with most of their
personnel directly into the State
Department.
Many of their studies which culminated
in the new international institutions of
1945 -- the United Nations, the World
Bank, and the International Monetary Fund --
began as research efforts at the
Council.
When he was chairman of the board of the
Council, John J. McCloy wrote a
private letter to its members in which
he euphemized that
"The Council -- more than any other
organization in the foreign field -- has helped
leading private citizens to gain an
understanding of international problems, and many
of them have subsequently used this
knowledge as government officials responsible
for carrying out United States foreign
policy".
Indeed, the CFR has served as a virtual
employment agency for the federal
government under both Democrats and
Republicans. The Christian Science Monitor
report back in September 1961 confirmed
this conclusion:
Because of the Council's single-minded
dedication to studying and deliberating
American foreign policy, there is a
constant flow of its members from private to
public service. Almost half of the
Council members have been invited to assume
official government positions or to act
as consultants at one time or another.
Anthony Lukas comments in the New
York Times magazine:
. . . Everyone knows how fraternity
brothers can help other brothers climb the
ladder of life. If you want to make
foreign policy, there's no better fraternity to
belong to than the Council . . .
When Henry Stimson -- the group's
quintessential member -- went to Washington
in 1940 as Secretary of War, he took
with him John McCloy, who was to become
Assistant Secretary in charge of personnel.
McCloy has recalled "Whenever we
needed a man we thumbed through the roll
of the Council members and put through a
call to New York".
And over the years, the men McCloy
called in turn called other Council members. .
. Of the first 82 names on a list
prepared to help President Kennedy staff his State
Department, 63 were Council members. . .
Indeed, the CFR provided the key men,
particularly in the field of foreign policy,
for the Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower,
Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and now Ford
Administrations. As Joseph Kraft phrased
it:
"the Council plays a special part
in helping to bridge the gap between the two parties,
affording unofficially a measure of
continuity when the guard changes in
Washington."
The following prominent Democrats have been,
or now are, agents of the Council
on Foreign Relations: Dean Acheson,
Alger Hiss, Adlai Stevenson, John Kennedy,
Robert Kennedy, Edward Kennedy (Boston
Committee), Averell Harriman, George
Ball, Henry Fowler, Dean Rusk, Adam
Yarmolinsky, Hubert Humphrey, Frank
Church, George McGovern and John
Lindsay.
Holding the fort for the CFR in the
Republican Party have been Dwight
Eisenhower, John Foster Dulles, Thomas
E. Dewey, Jacob Javits, Robert McNamara,
Henry Cabot Lodge, Paul Hoffman, John
Gardner, the Rockefellers, Elliot
Richardson, Arthur Burns and Richard
Nixon.
The policy-making power of the
CFR is absolutely awesome and yet remains,
strangely, virtually unknown to the
American public.
Every Secretary of State
from 1934 to 1976 [in an unbroken line to the present -
2002] (except James Byrnes) has been a
member of the Council, as has every
Secretary of Defense and every Deputy
Secretary of Defense.
In the 44 years from 1928 to 1972, nine
out of ten Republican presidential
nominees were CFR members, and from 1952
to 1972 a CFR member won every
presidential election (except Lyndon
Johnson, whose White House staff was
nonetheless CFR-dominated).
In half of the presidential campaigns
during those same two decades, both
candidates had been or were CFR members.
More than 40 CFR members were
among the U.S. delegation to the first
United Nations conference in San Francisco,
including Soviet agent Alger Hiss.
In the Kennedy-Johnson Administrations,
more than 60 CFR members held major
policy-making decisions. President Nixon
appointed at least 115 members of the
Council on Foreign Relations to key
posts in his Administration, an all-time high for
any President. These included such
established Leftists as Charles Yost, Stanley R.
Resor, Arthur Burns, Harold Brown, Maxwell
Taylor, Lincoln Bloomfield, George A.
Lincoln, Henry Cabot Lodge, Robert
Murphy, Dr. Frank Stanton, Richard F.
Pederson, Alan Pifer, Dr. Paul
McCracken, Ellsworth Bunker, Dr. Glenn Seaborg,
Joseph Sisco, Jacob Beam, Gerard Smith,
and John McCloy.
George Wallace made famous the slogan
that at the Presidential level there is not a
dime's worth of difference between the
Democrat and Republican parties. Many
observers have noted that while the two
parties use different rhetoric and aim their
spiels at differing segments of the
population, it seems to make little difference who
wins the election.
The reason for this is that while grass
roots Democrats and Republicans generally
have greatly differing views on the
economy, political policies, and federal activities,
as you climb the sides of the political
pyramid the two parties become more and more
alike. The reason there isn't a dime's
worth of difference is that instead of having two
distinctly different groups called
Democrats and Republicans, we actually have
Rockedems and Rockepubs.
Of some 1,600 CFR members, 120 either
own or control the nation's major
newspapers, magazines, radio and
television networks, as well as the most powerful
book-publishing companies. The interlock
with academia is immense.
As the Schlafly-Ward writing team has
noted:
"The Rockefeller clique includes
the most influential of the 82 CFR foundationadministration
types who have disproportionate
influence on what is taught in our
universities and over professorial and
department appointments."
Plus, CFR members virtually control the
major foundations, whose grants quite
often are bestowed on persons or groups
tied to the CFR. With this group, the
"coincidences" are simply
astounding.
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
has been under virtual CFR control since
its creation. Even though James R.
Schlesinger, who briefly headed it in 1973, was
not a CFR member, he was a protege of
CFR man Daniel Ellsberg of "Pentagon
Papers" fame, and his appointment
was manipulated by the key CFR operative, Henry
Kissinger.
Secretaries of State Dean Acheson, John
Foster Dulles, Dean Rusk, and Henry
Kissinger all were CFR members --
all, in fact, worked directly for the House of
Rockefeller -- before their appointments
to major federal posts.
The balance of the CFR elitist clique is
predominantly the big money boys. Of the
CFR's 1974 membership, about 90
represented the major Wall Street international
banking organizations. In addition,
presidents, vice-presidents and chairmen of the
boards of most of the giant corporations
are members of the CFR.
The Council on Foreign Relations gets
little publicity and is virtually unknown to
the general public. But it represents
Big Government, Big Business, Big Banking,
and the Big Media. At the apex of this
power elite sits none other than David
Rockefeller. And remember, this is the
organization which Henry Kissinger says
"invented"
him.
Nobody can rationally deny that
"our" government has been run by CFR members
for many years. They indeed form a
shadow government. The question is: Do these
CFR members generally share common
beliefs and goals?
For the first time we now have an actual
member of the CFR who is willing to
testify against the organization. He is
Admiral Chester Ward, U.S. Navy (Ret.), who
as a hot-shot youngish Admiral had
become Judge Advocate General of the Navy. As
a "man on the rise" he was
invited to become a member of the prestigious CFR. The
Establishment obviously assumed that
Admiral Ward, like so many hundreds before
him, would succumb to the flattery of
being invited into the inner sanctum and that
through subtle appeals to personal
ambition he would quickly fall in line.
The Insiders badly underestimated the
toughness and stern character of Admiral
Ward. He soon became a vocal opponent of
the organization. And while the
Rockefellers were not so gauche as to
remove him from the rolls of the organization,
he is no longer invited to attend the
private luncheons and briefing sessions. The
Admiral states:
The objective of the influential
majority of members of CFR has not changed since
its founding in 1922, more than 50 years
ago. In the 50th anniversary issue of
Foreign Affairs (the official quarterly publication of the CFR), the first and
leading
article was written by CFR member
Kingman Brewster, Jr., entitled "Reflections on
Our National Purpose".
He did not back away from defining it:
our national purpose should be to abolish
our nationality. Indeed, he pulled out
all the emotional stops in a hardsell for global
government. He described our
"Vietnam-seared generation" as being "far from
America Firsters" -- an expression
meant as a patronizing sop to our young people. In
the entire CFR lexicon, there is no term
of revulsion carrying a meaning so deep as
"America First".
While CFR members are not robots and may
disagree on many minor matters,
according to the Admiral, this lust
to surrender our independence is common to most
of them:
"Although, from the inside, CFR is
certainly not the monolith that some members and
most nonmembers consider it, this lust
to surrender the sovereignty and independence
of the United States is pervasive
throughout most of the membership, and particularly
in the leadership of the several
divergent cliques. . . "
If the Rockefeller family's CFR has a
"lust to surrender the sovereignty and
independence of the United States",
to whom are we supposed to surrender?
Admiral Ward answers that the goal is
the "submergence of U.S. sovereignty and
national independence into an
all-powerful one-world government". And, according
to the Admiral, about 95 percent of the
1,600 members of the CFR are aware that this
is the real purpose of the Council --
and support that goal!
The Council on Foreign Relations is the
chief tool of the Money Trust in
promoting World Government. The late
James Warburg (CFR), scion of the
international banking family which was
principally responsible for the creation of the
Federal Reserve System that controls our
money, told a Senate Committee on
February 17, 1950:
"We shall have world government
whether or not you like it -- by conquest or
consent."
Most Insiders, however, avoid using the
term World Government because it
frightens the geese; instead they use
code phrases like "new international order" or
"new world order". But Nelson
Rockefeller spelled out quite clearly what the Insiders
mean by "new world order" in
this Associated Press report dated July 26, 1968:
"New York Governor Nelson A.
Rockefeller says as president he would work toward
international creation of a 'new world
order' based on East-West cooperation instead
of conflict. The republican presidential
contender said he would begin a dialogue
with Red China, if elected, to 'improve
the possibilities of accommodations' with that
country 'as well as the Soviet
Union'."
It can hardly be surprising that Rockefeller's
chief foreign policy adviser at the
time, one Henry A. Kissinger, later
arranged to move President Nixon toward just
such accommodation and amalgamation with
the Communist world.
During his trips to both Red China and
U.S.S.R., again and again Mr. Nixon called
upon the Communists to join him in a
"New World Order". The constant repetition of
that phrase by members of the CFR
strains the possibility of coincidence.
No comments:
Post a Comment