The UN Founders
We’re now in sight of a United Nations that performs as envisioned
by its founders.1
George Bush, September 11, 1990, Televised address before a Joint
Session of Congress At last the United Nations is beginning to
fulfill the security mission its founders intended.
Democratic Congressman Lee H. Hamilton, Foreign Affairs, Summer
1992 With the United Nations finally beginning to function as its
framers intended, it is time for the United States to lead....
Republican Congressman James A. Leach, Foreign Affairs, Summer
1992 The United Nations has begun to fulfill the vision of its
Changing Our Ways, 1992 report of the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace After suffering years of declining prestige, the
United Nations is once again basking in the same glory it enjoyed in
the immediate post-World War II years. Solemn references to the
“ideals,” “vision,” and “wisdom” of the UN founders abound in
current speeches and articles as we experience another round of
historical revisionism. In 1945, we are told, a peace-hungry world
groped for solutions that would put an end to war. Atomic weapons
made their quest an absolute necessity, because an atomic exchange
could put an end to mankind. Statesmen of great vision seized the
opportunity and fashioned an instrument - the United Nations - to
attain that lofty and elusive goal: world peace.
Creation of the CFR
That, of course, is the standard textbook rendering and the
interpretation of history most frequently encountered today.
Unfortunately, it is not accurate. The organization known as the
United Nations did indeed officially come into being with the
signing of the UN Charter by representatives from 50 nations meeting
in San Francisco on June 26, 1945. But that signal event was the
culmination of years of planning by a private, high-level policy
group that had gained de facto control of our foreign policy during
the Roosevelt Administration. Immediately after our entry into the
war, that organization, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR),
planted the idea of a world-governing “peace” organization.
instigation of our State Department, the 26 nations at war against
the Axis powers proclaimed themselves the United Nations in January
1942. Historian Clarence Carson observed:
Roosevelt worked to avoid the pitfalls that had helped to keep the
United States out of the League of Nations. His hand is clearly
apparent in trying to get the name accepted even before the
organization had been formed. (Americans continued to refer to their
side as the “Allies” during World War II, not the “United Nations,”
but officially the term was being used anyhow.)3
Roosevelt, however, was merely implementing the policies that were
being handed to him. In his 1988 exposé, The Shadows of Power: The
Council on Foreign Relations and the American Decline, James Perloff
outlined the genesis of the UN plan:
In January 1943, Secretary of State Cordell Hull formed a steering
committee composed of himself, Leo Pasvolsky, Isaiah Bowman, Sumner
Welles, Norman Davis, and Morton Taylor. All of these men - with the
exception of Hull - were in the CFR. Later known as the Informal
Agenda Group, they drafted the original proposal for the United
Nations. It was Bowman - a founder of the CFR and member of Colonel
House’s old “Inquiry” - who first put forward the concept. They
called in three attorneys, all CFR men, who ruled that it was
constitutional. Then they discussed it with FDR on June 15, 1944.
The President approved the plan, and announced it to the public that
The list of those in the U.S. delegation to the UN’s founding San
Francisco Conference reads like a CFR roll call. Delegates who were,
had been, or would later become members of the Council included:5
Theodore C. Achilles
James W. Angell
Hamilton Fish Armstrong
Charles E. Bohlen
John M. Cabot
Mitchell B. Carroll
Andrew W. Cordier
John S. Dickey
John Foster Dulles
James Clement Dunn
Clark M. Eichelberger
Muir S. Fairchild
Thomas K. Finletter
Arthur J. Hepburn
Julius C. Holmes
Philip C. Jessup
Joseph E. Johnson
R. Keith Kane
Foy D. Kohler
John E. Lockwood
John J. McCloy
Cord Meyer, Jr
Edward G. Miller, Jr.
Dewitt C. Poole
William L. Ransom
Nelson A. Rockefeller
James T. Shotwell
Harold E. Stassen
Edward R. Stettinius, Jr.
Adlai E. Stevenson
Llewellyn E. Thompson
Herman B. Wells
Charles W. Yost
The secretary-general of the conference was U.S. State Department
official Alger Hiss, a member of the
CFR and a secret Soviet agent. Other high-level American communists
who served as delegates included: Noel Field, Harold Glasser, Irving
Kaplan, Nathan Gregory Silvermaster, Victor Perlo, Henry Julian
Wadley, and Harry Dexter White. Some - like Hiss, Lauchlin Currie,
and Lawrence Duggan - shared the odious distinction of membership in
both the Council and the Communist Party. In the next chapter, we
will explore the important relationship between these two seemingly
disparate organizations as well as the communist leadership role at
the conference. But for now, let us concentrate on the Council.
What the historical record shows, and what is essential for all
people of good will to understand, is that the United Nations is
completely a creature of the Council on Foreign Relations and was
designed by that organization eventually to become an instrument for
an all-powerful world government. In order to establish the factual
basis for this claim, and to permit an appreciation for the
significance of it, we must revisit some murky pages of the history
of this century.
Some Necessary Background
Hitler’s invasion of Poland, the casus belli of World War II, was
launched on September 1, 1939. Although the United States would not
enter the war for two more years (December 1941), within days of the
German invasion top members of the CFR were taking over post-war
planning for the Roosevelt Administration. In 1947, the Council
published its own version of how it came to run FDR’s State
Within a week [of the war’s start], Hamilton Fish Armstrong, Editor
of Foreign Affairs, and Walter H. Mallory, Executive Director of the
Council, paid a visit to the Department of State to offer such aid
on the part of the Council as might be useful and appropriate in
view of the war.
The Department was already greatly overworked as a result of the
crisis.... The Council representatives suggested that, pending the
time when the Department itself would be able to assemble a staff
and begin research and analysis on the proper scale, the Council
might undertake work in certain fields, without, of course, any
formal assignment of responsibility on the one side or restriction
of independent action on the other....
The Department officers welcomed the Council’s suggestion and
encouraged the Council to formulate a more detailed plan. This was
done in consultation with Department officials. The Rockefeller
Foundation was then approached for a grant of funds to put the plan
into operation. When assurances had been received that the necessary
funds would be available, the personnel of the groups were selected
and on December 8, 1939, an organization meeting was held in
Washington....6 Following that meeting, as Robert W. Lee explained
in his 1981 book, The United Nations Conspiracy, the State
Department established a Committee on Post-War Problems.
assisted by a research staff that was organized in February 1941
into a Division of Special Research.
“After the Japanese attack on
Pearl Harbor,” wrote Lee, “the research facilities were expanded and
the overall project was reorganized into an Advisory Committee on
Post-War Foreign Policies. Serving on the Committee were a number of
influential CFR members, including Hamilton Fish Armstrong, Sumner
Welles, Isaiah Bowman, Norman H. Davis, James T. Shotwell, Myron C.
Taylor, and Leo Pasvolsky. The Russian-born Pasvolsky became the
Committee’s Director of Research.”7
The Council and its defenders
insist that it has no sinister agenda; that, in fact, it has no
agenda at all.
“The Council shall not take any position on questions of foreign
policy,” the organization officially declares.8 It is simply a study
group, its spokesmen regularly maintain, and its civic-minded
members offered their expertise in service of their country during
an hour of great peril. And they have continued to provide their
services ever since.
One who heartily disagreed with those protestations of innocence and
benevolence was Admiral Chester Ward, a former Judge Advocate
General of the Navy, who was himself a member of the Council for 16
years. His experience led him to conclude that the group was formed
for the “purpose of promoting disarmament and submergence of U.S.
sovereignty and national independence into an all-powerful oneworld
government.” Together with coauthor Phyllis Schlafly, he wrote that
the most influential clique within the CFR “is composed of the
one-world-global-government ideologists - more respectfully referred
to as the organized internationalists. They are the ones who carry
on the tradition of the founders.”
Moreover, he charged, “this lust
to surrender the sovereignty and independence of the United States
is pervasive throughout most of the membership.... The majority
visualize the utopian submergence of the United States as a
subsidiary administrative unit of a global government....”9 These
are serious charges from a man of considerable distinction who
enjoyed the benefit of an inside look at the Insiders of the
Admiral Ward is far from alone in rendering this harsh judgement of
the CFR. After surveying the colossal damage done to America and the
Free World from the foreign and domestic policies imposed by members
of the Council, many patriotic Americans have arrived at the same
conclusion. These include historians, journalists, academicians,
members of Congress, and other civic leaders. We will be introducing
some of their statements further along in this book. More
immediately, however, let us examine the origins of the Council on
Origins of the CFR
According to the CFR’s own history:
The origins of the Council on Foreign Relations lay in the concern
of the founders at what they regarded as the disappointing conduct
of the Versailles negotiations ... and at the shortsighted, as they
saw it, rejection by the United States of membership in the League
of Nations. In 1921 they founded the Council as a privately funded,
nonprofit and nonpartisan organization of individual members.10
Accompanying President Woodrow Wilson to the Versailles Peace
Conference at the end of World War I were a number of men who would
become founders of the CFR. Preeminent among these was Wilson’s
closest adviser, the mysterious Colonel Edward Mandell House.
dependent was Wilson upon House that he referred to him as “my
second personality,” “my independent self,” “my alter ego.” Further,
he asserted, “His thoughts and mine are one.”11 According to Wilson
biographer George Sylvester Viereck, “Woodrow Wilson stalks through
history on the feet of Edward Mandell House.”12 An appreciation of
this abnormal dependency, what Viereck would call “The Strangest
Friendship in History,”13 is essential to understanding the course
of American statecraft in the ensuing decades.
It was Colonel House who penned the first draft of the covenant of
the League of Nations.14 He also prevailed on Wilson to convene the
group known as the “Inquiry,” a cabal of American one-worlders who
formulated much of Wilson’s “Fourteen Points” peace program.
Hand-picked by House, the group included Walter Lippman, Allen W.
Dulles, John Foster Dulles, Christian A. Herter, and Norman Thomas.
Director of the Inquiry was Dr. Sidney Mezes, House’s
Perhaps one of the best sources of insight into the mind and
character of Wilson’s “alter ego” is a novel authored by House
entitled Philip Dru: Administrator.16 Although it was published
anonymously during the presidential campaign of 1912, the colonel
later acknowledged the book as his own. He admitted it was “not much
of a novel,” but that fiction was the best format for disseminating
his political ideas to a large audience.17
One need barely open the
book’s cover to discover the author’s radical ideals. The title page
prominently features a quotation by the 19th century revolutionist
and archconspirator Giuseppe Mazzini. Identified on the same page is
the book’s publisher, B. W. Huebsch, a longtime publisher of
left-wing literature who was affiliated with numerous Communist
Party fronts. The dedication page declares, in typical Marxist
fashion, that “in the starting, the world-wide social structure was
wrongly begun.” The novel’s hero, Philip Dru, opines that American
society is “a miserable travesty” and believes in “Socialism as
dreamed of by Karl Marx,” modified with a “spiritual leavening.” Dru
leads a military coup, establishes himself as dictator of the United
States, abolishes the constitution and institutes Marxist reforms.
Many of Administrator Dru’s “reforms” would later be adopted by
President Wilson. Viereck observed that “The Wilson Administration
transferred the Colonel’s ideas from the pages of fiction to the
pages of history.”18 House’s novel, commented Dr. J. B. Matthews,
“is an indispensable source book on the origins of Woodrow Wilson’s
New Freedom and Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal.”19 Through Philip
Dru, House also proposed a “league of nations” - anticipating by
seven years Wilson’s appeal at Versailles for an identically-named
In its 1928 Survey of American Foreign Relations, the CFR reported,
“In the first months of the World War a new movement sprang up
spontaneously - the League to Enforce Peace.”20 Actually, it didn’t
spring up “spontaneously” at all. The League was the creation of one
Theodore Marburg, a wealthy internationalist from Maryland, and was
funded primarily by Andrew Carnegie, at the time reputed to be the
richest man in the world.21
The CFR history recounts that “the four
years’ activity of the League to Enforce Peace served the League [of
Nations] cause by preparing the public mind for its reception and by
popularizing the ideal of international organization in behalf of
peace.”22 Concerning Wilson’s involvement with the Marburg/Carnegie
League to Enforce Peace, the 1928 volume reported:
As early as the autumn of 1914 Wilson said, when looking ahead to
the end of the war; “all nations must be absorbed into some great
association of nations....” When Wilson was persuaded to speak at
the League to Enforce Peace banquet in Washington on May 27, 1916,
he endorsed the program of that organization only indirectly, making
no mention of force; but he advocated the general idea of a league
with such ardor that he was henceforth regarded as its champion.23
The U.S. Senate, however, led by “irreconcilables” Henry Cabot Lodge
of Massachusetts and William Borah of Idaho, refused to ratify the
Covenant. Americans were suspicious of entanglements with the
constantly warring European powers and wanted no part of submersion
in a world super-state. Without American participation, the one-worlders’
plans for a global government would come to naught.
“Wilson had done his best in his individualistic way from 1914 to
stimulate a public desire for a liberal peace and a new world
order,” said the CFR’s director of research Charles P. Howland. But,
he wrote, “Men’s minds were not ready for great decisions in a new
political field; the mass opinion of 120,000,000 people orientates
itself slowly in novel situations.”24
Obviously, men’s minds needed to be made “ready.” It was for this
purpose that the Council on Foreign Relations was launched at a May
1919 meeting held at the Majestic Hotel in Paris. Joining American
members of the Inquiry were like-minded internationalists from
Britain belonging to the elite, semisecret Round Table group begun
by that diamond and gold mogul of fabled wealth, Cecil Rhodes.25
According to Rhodes biographer Sarah Millin, “The government of the
world was Rhodes’ simple desire.”26 The Paris meeting was hosted by
Colonel House.27 Out of that gathering was born an Institute of
International Affairs, which would have branches in London and New
York. The locations were appropriate, since as one historian of the
Council observed, “nearly all of them [the CFR’s founding members]
were bankers and lawyers.”28
Not just your ordinary, run-of-the-mill
bankers and lawyers, mind you, these were the top international
barristers and financiers of Wall Street who were associated with
the magic name of J. P..
“The founding president of the CFR,” wrote author James Perloff,
“was John W. Davis, who was J. P. Morgan’s personal attorney and a
millionaire in his own right. Founding vice-president was Paul
Cravath, whose law firm also represented the Morgan interests.
Morgan partner Russell Leffingwell would later become the Council’s
first chairman. A variety of other Morgan partners, attorneys and
agents crowded the CFR’s early membership rolls.”29
In 1921, the
American branch of the organization launched in Paris was
incorporated in New York as the Council on Foreign Relations. The
British branch became the Royal Institute of International Affairs,
otherwise known as Chatham House.
CFR Globalist Influence Grows
To propagate its “internationalist” world view among a select
intelligentsia, the Council launched a quarterly journal, Foreign
Affairs. Time magazine called Foreign Affairs “the most influential
periodical in print,”30 while the CFR itself boasts that its journal
provides an “insider’s look at world politics.”31 Admiral Ward said
of its influence:
“By following the evolution of this propaganda in
the most prestigious scholarly journal in the world, Foreign
Affairs, anyone can determine years in advance what the future
defense and foreign policies of the United States will be. If a
certain proposition is repeated often enough in that journal, then
the U.S. Administration in power - be it Republican or Democratic -
begins to act as if that proposition or assumption were an
established fact.”32 (Emphasis in original)
The CFR’s globalist bent
was evident from the first issue of Foreign Affairs, where readers
were told, “Our government should enter heartily into the existing
League of Nations....”33 With CFR members in charge of dispersing
tens of millions of dollars from the major tax-exempt foundations
(Carnegie, Rockefeller, Twentieth Century Fund) each year, it was
not long before an entire nationwide network of one-world support
groups was established. By 1928 the CFR’s research division could
report to the Council:
University courses dealing with international affairs have trebled
in number since the war; there has been an outpouring of books on
foreign relations, diplomatic history, and international law;
periodicals such as Foreign Affairs, Current History, and the
American Journal of International Law, and the information service
of the Foreign Policy Association are supplying materials for a
sound background; and associations and organizations devoted to an
impartial discussion of international relations and the supplying of
authentic information have sprung up in almost every great city. As
yet, however, these agencies for furnishing adequate standards of
judgment and accurate current information have not penetrated very
far down in society.34
Whether or not the Council’s approved sources provided “impartial
discussion,” “authentic information,” and “adequate standards of
judgment” is something for each reader to decide for himself. It is
worth noting, however, that a congressional investigation by the
Special House Committee to Investigate Tax- Exempt Foundations (the
Reece Committee) concluded in 1954 that the CFR “productions are not
objective but are directed overwhelmingly at promoting the globalist
concept,” and that it had become “in essence an agency of the United
States Government ... carrying its internationalist bias with it.”35
The director of research for that investigative committee was the
same Norman Dodd whom we quoted in our Introduction (about the
astonishing admission to him by Ford Foundation President H. Rowan
Gaither). If Dodd was jarred (and he was) by Gaither’s confessed
involvement in a master scheme to merge the U.S. and the Soviet
Union, he was no less shocked by what his investigative team found
in the minutes of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
In his 1980 exposé, The Tax-Exempt Foundations, William H. McIlhany,
II interviewed Norman Dodd, who repeated what his investigator
Kathryn Casey had found in the “peace” organization’s minutes
compiled several years before the start of World War I:
[In the minutes] the trustees raised a question. And they discussed
the question and the question was specific, “Is there any means
known to man more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the
life of an entire people?” And they discussed this and at the end of
a year they came to the conclusion that there was no more effective
means to that end known to man. So, then they raised question number
two, and the question was, “How do we involve the United States in a
And then they raised the question,
“How do we control the diplomatic
machinery of the United States?” And the answer came out, “We” must
control the State Department. At this point we catch up with what we
had already found out and that was that through an agency set up by
the Carnegie Endowment every high appointment in the State
Department was cleared. Finally, we were in a war. These trustees in
a meeting about 1917 had the brashness to congratulate themselves on
the wisdom of their original decision because already the impact of
war had indicated it would alter life and can alter life in this
country. This was the date of our entry in the war; we were
involved. They even had the brashness to word and to dispatch a
telegram to Mr. Wilson, cautioning him to see that the war did not
end too quickly. [Emphasis added]
The war was over. Then the concern became, as expressed by the
trustees, seeing to it that there was no reversion to life in this
country as it existed prior to 1914. And they came to the conclusion
that, to prevent a reversion, they must control education. And then
they approached the Rockefeller Foundation and they said,
take on the acquisition of control of education as it involves
subjects that are domestic in their significance? We’ll take it on
the basis of subjects that have an international significance.”
it was agreed.
Then, together, they decided the key to it is the teaching of
American history and they must change that. So, they then approached
the most prominent of what we might call American historians at that
time with the idea of getting them to alter the manner in which they
presented the subject.36
The first president of the Endowment was Theodore Roosevelt’s
Secretary of State, Elihu Root,37 who became an honorary member of
the CFR in 1922 and from 1931-37 served as honorary president of the
group. Later a U.S. senator and Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Root
stated in his address to the CFR, at the opening of its new
headquarters in 1930, that to achieve its goals the Council would
have to engage in “steady, continuous, and unspectacular labor.”38
That it has surely done. A host of adjunct organizations were
created to promote the CFR viewpoint: the United World Federalists,
Atlantic Council, Trilateral Commission, Aspen Institute, Business
Council, Foreign Policy Association, etc. Through its members, the
CFR steadily gained influence in and dominance of the executive
branch of the federal government, both major political parties,
important organs of the news media, major universities, influential
think tanks, large tax-exempt foundations, huge multi-national
corporations, international banks, and other power centers.
Historian Arthur M. Schlesinger (CFR), who served as a special
assistant to President Kennedy, wrote in 1965 of,
“the New York
financial and legal community - that arsenal of talent which had so
long furnished a steady supply ... to Democratic as well as
Republican administrations. This community was the heart of the
American Establishment ... its front organizations [are] the
Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie foundations and the Council on
Foreign Relations; its organs, the New York Times and Foreign
John J. McCloy was known in CFR Insider circles as “the
chairman of the Establishment.” Besides serving as chairman of the
CFR from 1953 to 1970, and as chairman of both the Ford Foundation
and the Rockefellers’ Chase Manhattan Bank for long periods, he was
friend and advisor to nine U.S. presidents, from Franklin Roosevelt
to Ronald Reagan.40 McCloy recalled: “Whenever we needed a man we
thumbed through the roll of the Council members and put through a
call to New York.”41 The Council’s imprimatur has become so
essential for many top posts that veteran CFR member Richard Barnet
has stated, “failure to be asked to be a member of the Council has
been regarded for a generation as a presumption of unsuitability for
high office in the national security bureaucracy.”42
decades ago on this Insider lockgrip on our government, newspaper
columnist Edith Kermit Roosevelt (a granddaughter of Theodore
What is the Establishment’s view-point? Through the Roosevelt,
Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations its ideology is
constant: That the best way to fight Communism is by a One World
Socialist state governed by “experts” like themselves. The result
has been policies which favor the growth of the superstate, gradual
surrender of United States sovereignty to the United Nations and a
steady retreat in the face of Communist aggression.43
lockhold on the White House and other top positions in the federal
government has continued through to the present. Writing in the
September 21, 1992 issue of The New American, Robert W. Lee briefly
cited some key indicators of continuing CFR dominance:
At least 13 of the 18 men to serve as Secretary of State since the
CFR’s founding have belonged to the organization, not counting
current Acting Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, who is also
a member. Our last eight CIA directors have also belonged, including
current chief Robert M. Gates.
During the past four decades alone, the major-party candidates for
President and Vice President who were, or eventually became, members
of the CFR include: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Adlai Stevenson, John F.
Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Gerald
Ford, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, George Bush,
Bill Clinton, Henry Cabot Lodge, Nelson A. Rockefeller, Edmund
Muskie, and Geraldine Ferraro.
President Bush was a CFR director in the 1970s. Members of his
Administration who belong include Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney,
National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, CIA Director William
Webster, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Colin
The UN founders so highly lauded today were carrying out a
decades-old plan of - in the words of Admiral Ward - “promoting
disarmament and submergence of U.S. sovereignty and independence
into an all-powerful one-world government.”44 They were
“one-world-global-government-ideologists,” who conspired with
totalitarian communists to subvert and destroy the constitutional
system of government they had sworn under oath to protect and
uphold. Their treasonous actions, “ideals” and “vision” deserve not
honor but utter contempt.
1. President Bush in televised address before a Joint Session of
Congress, September 11, 1990, Weekly Compilation of Presidential
Documents, Vol. 26 - Number 37, p. 1360.
2. Carnegie Endowment’s National Commission on America, Changing Our
Ways: America and the New World (Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution, 1992), p. 2.
3. Clarence Carson, A Basic History of the United States - Book V:
The Welfare State, 1929 - 1985 (Wadley, AL: American Textbook
Committee, 1986), p. 151.
4. James Perloff, The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign
Relations and the American Decline (Appleton, WI: Western Islands,
1988), p. 71.
5. Robert W. Lee, The United Nations Conspiracy (Appleton, WI:
Western Islands, 1981), p. 243.
6. John W. Davis, The Council On Foreign Relations: A Record of
Twenty-Five Years, 1921 - 1946 (New York: Council on Foreign
Relations, 1947), pp. 15-17, quoted by Lee, p. 7.
7. Lee, p. 7.
8. See “Rules, Guidelines, and Practices,” in Council on Foreign
Relations Annual Report: July 1, 1990 - June 30, 1991, p. 168.
9. Phyllis Schlafly and Chester Ward, Rear Admiral, USN (Ret.),
Kissinger on the Couch (New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House, 1975),
pp. 146, 149-50.
10. “President’s Report,” August 31, 1972, Council on Foreign
Relations, quoted by Schlafly, Ward, p.
11. Charles Seymour (ed.), The Initimate Papers of Colonel House,
Vol. I, “Behind The Political Curtain: 1912 - 1915” (Boston: Hougton
Mifflin, 1926), p. 114.
12. George Sylvester Viereck, The Strangest Friendship in History:
Woodrow Wilson and Colonel House (New York: Liveright, 1932), p.
13. Ibid., p. xi.
14. Ibid., p. 54.
15. Charles Seymour (ed.), The Initimate Papers of Colonel House,
Vol. III, “Into the World War: April, 1917 - June, 1918” (Boston:
Hougton Mifflin, 1928), p. 171. See also Alan Stang, The Actor: The
True Story of John Foster Dulles Secretary of State, 1953 - 1959
(Appleton, WI: Western Islands, 1968), p. 19.
16. Colonel Edward Mandell House, Philip Dru: Administrator (New
York: B.W. Huebsch, 1912).
17. J. B. Matthews, “Philip Dru: Fascist Prototype,” American
Mercury, November 1954, p. 132.
18. Viereck, p. 28.
19. Matthews, p. 134.
20. Charles P. Howland, Survey of American Foreign Relations 1928,
published for the Council on Foreign Relations (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1928), p. 236.
21. William P. Hoar, Architects of Conspiracy: An Intriguing History
(Appleton, WI: Western Islands, 1984), pp. 91-92.
22. Howland, p. 237.
23. Ibid., pp. 237-38.
24. Ibid., p. 239.
25. Gary Allen with Larry Abraham, None Dare Call It Conspiracy
(Rossmoor, CA: Concord Press, 1971), pp. 92-93.
26. Sarah Gertrude Millin, Cecil Rhodes (New York: Harper &
Brothers, 1933), p. 8.
27. Allen, p. 93. See also Joseph Kraft, “School for Statesmen,”
Harper’s July 1958, p. 64.
28. Robert D. Schulzinger, The Wise Men of Foreign Affairs: The
History of the Council on Foreign Relations (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1984), p. 6. See also Carroll Quigley Tragedy and
Hope: A History of the World in our Time (New York: Macmillan,
1966), p. 952.
29. Perloff, p. 38.
30. Stitch-in subscription card in Foreign Affairs, Summer 1986.
Also, letter to subscribers from David Kellogg, publisher, 1991 or
31. Letter to former subscribers from George Winchester, Foreign
Affairs stationery, 1991 or 1992.
32. Schlafly, Ward, p. 151.
33. Charles W. Eliot, “The Next American Contribution to
Civilization,” Foreign Affairs, September 15,
1922, p. 65, quoted by Perloff, p. 37.
34. Howland, CFR Survey: 1928, p. 123.
35. Schlafly, Ward, p. 150.
36. William H. McIlhany, II, The Tax-Exempt Foundations (Westport,
CT: Arlington House, 1980), pp.
60-61. See also videotaped interview of Norman Dodd, The Hidden
Agenda: Merging America Into
World Government (Westlake Village, CA: American Media), one hour
37. McIlhany, p. 61.
38. Perloff, p. 51.
39. Arthur M. Schlesinger, A Thousand Days (Boston: Houghton
Mifflin, 1965), quoted by Hoar, p. 78.
40. Alan Brinkley, “Minister Without Portfolio,” Harper’s, February
1983, p. 31.
41. John J. McCloy, quoted by J. Anthony Lukas, “The Council on
Foreign Relations: Is It a Club?
Seminar? Presidium? Invisible Government?” New York Times Magazine,
November 21, 1971, pp. 125-
26, quoted by Perloff, p. 8. See also Max Holland, “Citizen McCloy,”
The Wilson Quarterly, Autumn
1991, p. 35.
42. Richard J. Barnet, Roots of War (New York: Atheneum, 1972), p.
49, quoted by Perloff, pp. 9-10.
43. Edith Kermit Roosevelt, “Elite Clique Holds Power in U.S.,”
Indianapolis News, December 23, 1961, p. 6, quoted by Perloff, p.
44. Schlafly, Ward, p. 150.