Yes, Virginia, There is an Establishment
"The Rockefellers are the epitome of the nation's permanent Establishment: governments change, economics fluctuate, foreign alliances shift - the Rockefellers prevail.''
In previous chapters we have seen that the Rockefellers exercise tremendous leverage over business, banking, and the economy. In the last chapter we showed how the family has used that money to set themselves up in the charity business, and then used their influence through their giveaways to guide education, religion, and the media-and therefore public opinion-along the proper course. Proper for the Rockefellers, that is
The perfect situation, from the Rockefellers' point of view, is to combine their economic muscle and their political oomph so that one hand washes the other. They have mastered to a frightening degree the art of using economic power to build political power which enhances economic power even further, and so on, ad infinitum.
We have seen that the Rockefellers have spent generations developing an economic consortium that is the sleekest, smoothest, and most powerful combine on earth. The incredibly powerful political complex the Rockefellers have put together makes their economic activities look like the naive simplicity of a backwoods general store, and consists of organizations which are thoroughly interlocked with and financed by the House of Rockefeller.
Nelson Rockefeller, the unelected Vice President of the United States, is a leader in the campaign to submerge American sovereignty in a World Superstate. Long-time internationalist Alan Cranston (right) is also an avid promoter of World Government, 'in violation of his oath of office as a US Senator.
At the center of Insider power, influence, and planning in the United States is the pervasive Council on Foreign Relations. Headquartered in the Harold Pratt House on 68th Street in New York City, its members have dominated the last seven Administrations and have complete control of the Ford Administration now. The CFR was created by the Rockefellers and their allies to be the focus of their drive for a "New World Order". While we hate to use the terribly trite cliché about the many arms of the octopus being controlled by the same brain, we apologetically must include it because it is simply the most apt analogy.
Some of these organizations, although they are very influential in government, are virtually unknown to the average citizen. Others you may hear cited by the media a, a source for an important opinion or -inside information, about some national or international event. What you definitely are not told is that you are hearing the voice of Rockefeller under dozens of different guises from the family's loyal army of ventriloquists.
Collectively, this group of individuals and organizations is known as the Eastern Liberal Establishment; the key figures in it are often referred to as Insiders.
The keystone of the entire Establishment arch is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The leadership of the CFR is the equivalent to the brain of the octopus. David Rockefeller is chairman of the board of the CFR. lt is impossible to comprehend fully the interlock of Rockefeller power without being aware of the all-pervasive influence of the Council. So important is this organization that we will devote the rest of this chapter to it. And throughout the rest of this book we shall designate its members by putting CFR in parentheses after their names.
The Council on Foreign Relations, headquartered in New York City, is composed of an elite of approximately 1600 of the nation's Establishment Insiders in the fields of high finance, academics, politics, commerce, the foundations, and the mass media. The names of many of it members are household words; others, equally important, are less familiar. (For example, you may not recognize the name Harold Geneen. But when you hear he is chairman of the board of directors of IT & T, you can be assured he is a very big wheel indeed.)
Although the membership of the CFR is a veritable "Who's Who" in big business and the media, probably only one person in a thousand is familiar with the organization itself and even fewer are aware of its real purposes.
During its first fifty years of existence, the CFR was almost never mentioned by any of the moguls of the mass media. And when You realize that the membership of the CFR 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, US News & World Report, and many others, you can be sure that such anonymity is not accidental; it is deliberate.
For fifty years the CFR operated like the Invisible Man in the novel by H.G. Wells. In 1962, Dan Smoot's pioneering study, The Invisible Government, was successfully smothered by the paper curtain. Although its results were visible everywhere, the CFR seemed not to exist.
Then in 1972,two separate exposures of the Limousine Liberals of the CFR were published: None Dare Call It Conspiracy by this author, and The Naked Capitalist by Professor W. Cleon Skousen, former assistant to J. Edgar Hoover. Although both books were completely ignored by the Establishment's captive book review organs, both became nationwide bestsellers because of widespread interest in them at the grass roots level.
The fact that George Wallace was planning to seize upon the Council and its power, as an election-year issue in his third party candidacy for President, also contributed to the partial lifting of the cloak of secrecy which has surrounded the CFR. Obviously anticipating even more attention to the Council, 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 the unelected super government of the United States, but to maintain that it was always motivated by altruism, idealism, and selfless devotion to the public good. Moreover, the articles claimed, the CFR has, at least momentarily, withdrawn to the sidelines.
Still, as John Franklin Campbell admitted in his magazine article:
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 four-story 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 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. [Emphasis added]
Establishment apologist Anthony Lukas, writing in the New York Times magazine, also admitted that the Insiders of the Council have been responsible for our disastrous foreign policy over the past twenty-five years:
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 US occupation in Germany (Lucius Clay as military governor, McCloy again and James Conant as High Commissioners); NATO (Finletter again, Harlan Cleveland, Charles Spofford as US 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 reconstruction's and military security programs that followed.... The Council was their way of staying in touch with the levels of power ....
One of the "many other" CFR members active in the founding of the UN, whom Mr. Lukas did not mention, was the notorious traitor, perjurer, and Soviet agent, Alger Hiss, who actually served as Secretary General of the San Francisco meeting.
Prior to this time the number of stories about the CFR appearing in the mass media could be counted on the fingers of one hand. One of these early articles appeared in Harper's magazine in July 1958, and it is revealing to look at it now because its author, "Liberal" columnist Joseph Kraft, was himself a member of the CFR, and he was obviously directing his message to potential members of the Establishment's exclusive circle.
Describing the influence of the CFR, Kraft said:
It 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.
It is worth noting that Kraft called his article "School for Statesmen" -an admission that the members of the Council learn a "line-of strategy to be pursued in Washington".
Indeed, the CFR has served as a virtual employment agency for the federal government, under both Democrat and Republican administrations. In his New York Times magazine article, Anthony Lukas observed:
. . . 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..."
This -fraternity- of Insiders has been so successful that its members have virtually dominated every administration in Washington since the days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
CFR members occupied the major policy-making positions, especially in the field of foreign relations, under Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon; and they are just as powerful today, under the Administration of Gerald Ford.
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."
George Wallace made famous the slogan that 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 actually 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 their dime's worth of difference is that instead of having two distinctly different groups called Democrats and Republicans, we actually have Rockedems and Rockepubs.
Every four years the Americans have the privilege of choosing between the Rockepubs candidate and the Rockedems standard bearer. In 1952 and 1956, CFR Adlai Stevenson challenged CFR Eisenhower. In 1960, it was CFR Nixon vs. CFR Kennedy. In 1964, the conservative wing of the COP stunned the Establishment by nominating its candidate over Nelson Rockefeller. At which point Rockefeller and the CFR wing proceeded to picture Barry Goldwater as a dangerous radical who would abolish Social Security, drop atom bombs on Hanoi, and in general be a reincarnation of the Fascist dictator Mussolini. The CFR Rockepubs drew up the indictment, the Rockedems prosecuted the case, and. Goldwater went down to ignominious defeat-without ever understanding how he had been sandbagged by the leaders of his own party.
Having disposed of the challenge to the Establishment in 1964, the CFR was firmly back in the saddle in 1968. That year CFR Nixon was "-pitted-against CFR Humphrey. The 1972"-contest " featured CFR Nixon vs. CFR Mc Covern. The Rockefellers were sure to win no matter which candidate emerged victorious.
In recent years, Establishment apologists would have you believe that the CFR was thrust into the cold by Richard Nixon (one such article was even titled "-The Death Rattle of the Eastern Establishment-). Such protestations are about as sincere as Br'er Rabbit begging not to be thrown into the briar patch.
The truth is that Nixon was completely under the thumb of the CFR, and served his masters faithfully-until they abandoned him to open the White House doors for Nelson Rockefeller as an unelected Vice President. At the beginning of his Administration, Nixon placed at least 115 CFR members in key positions in the Executive Branch an all-time high for any President. The vast majority of these men are still around today, running the Ford Administration.
Perhaps the most important and certainly the most prominent of all these Establishment Insiders is Henry Kissinger.
No man alive could more effectively represent the Council on Foreign Relations than Herr Kissinger, who for all practical purposes has emerged as the Assistant President of the United States. Kissinger was a Rockefeller man, serving on the staff of the CFR, when he received his appointment to the Nixon Administration.
Kissinger has long recognized how much he owes to the Council on Foreign Relations. In the preface to his book The Necessity For Choice, published in 1961, he said:
Five years ago, the Council on Foreign Relations gave me my first opportunity to work systematically on problems of foreign relations. My relations with it have remained close and my admiration for it has, if anything, increased.
Consider: In 1956,Kissinger was an obscure German immigrant who was a mere professor at Harvard University. In less than twenty years, he has become so powerful that he survives the dismissal of his ostensible boss, and apparently tells presidents, prime ministers, and other potentates what to say and do. What is the source of his remarkable authority?
Professor Kissinger's public commitments were in nearly every case the opposite of those expressed by Richard Nixon in his successful bid for the Presidency. But, after the rah-rah of the campaign was over, the CFR boys were brought in to run the show-and Henry Kissinger was Numero Uno.
Richard Nixon's own membership in the Council on Foreign Relations became an issue in 1962, during his contest with Joe Shell in California for the Republican gubernatorial nomination. After that, Mr. Nixon arranged with the Council for his name not to appear on public releases as a member. The CFR admits that it is sometimes necessary for its members to appear to have left the Council.
On page 42 of the Council's 1952 Report, for example, we read:
Members of the Council are sometimes obliged, by their acceptance of government posts in Washington and else where, to curtail or suspend for a time their participation in Council activities.
Was Richard Nixon a secret member of the CFR throughout his Presidency?
The Reece Congressional Committee discovered during its investigation of foundations that there are a number of secret members of the Council, including industrialist Cyrus Eaton and Senator William Fulbright. Our guess is that Richard Nixon was among them.
Consider, after all, Mr. Nixon's CFR foreign policy - a subject in which he has certainly earned his scarlet "A ". Disarmament without inspections, increased - trade-on credit with the Communists, abandonment of our anti Communist allies, détente with the Soviet Union and Red China, are all programs of the CFR. Every one of these policies contradicts the Republican Party Platform of 1968. But, once in the White House, Mr. Nixon ignored the Republican Platform on which he was elected and proceeded to follow the dictates of the Council on Foreign Relations.
What are the Rockefellers attempting to accomplish with their CFR?
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, US Navy (Ret.), who as a hotshot 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 sanctums of the Establishment, and that through subtle appeals to personal ambition 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 organio longer invited to attend the private 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 non members 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 "passion to surrender- US sovereignty to whom are we supposed to surrender? Admiral Ward answers that the goal is the,
"submergence of US sovereignty and national independence into an all-powerful one-world government." And, according to the Admiral, about 95 % of the 1,600 members of the CFR are aware that this is the real purpose of the Council-and support that goal!
For centuries, naive idealists have dreamed of a "parliament of man" that would put an end to poverty, ignorance and disease. "Modern one-worlders have added pollution and over-population to the list of evils World Government would cure. The allure of a world super state to such starry-eyed dreamers is obvious.
But what is the appeal of a World Government to such canny rationalists as the Rockefellers and others of the international super-rich? You might think that such a World Government would threaten their financial power and therefore would be the last thing on earth they would support. The answer is obvious - they expect the coming World Government to be under their control!
You will remember that John D. Rockefeller Sr. ,who proclaimed that "competition is a sin," used every devious trick he could devise to create a national oil monopoly. His strategy was as ruthless as it was effective: Get control of your competitors, and then keep control of them.
Old John D. quickly learned that political power was essential to protect and advance his economic clout, so he went into the politics business. Once he controlled the purse strings of enough captive Congressmen, he could get them to pull strings to benefit Standard Oil and the family's other business interests. In other words. he sought national control to protect his national monopoly.
Today, however, the Rockefeller interests are not just nationwide, they are worldwide. Both Exxon and Chase Manhattan Bank do business in more than one hundred countries. The majority of these countries are found in what is euphemistically called the "third world". Many of these are former colonies of Western nations who owe their so-called independence to the Rockefellers and the CFR. Now they are ruled, for the most part, by tin-pot dictators who have no more understanding of the realities of economics than Elizabeth Taylor does of the sanctity of a convent. And there is always the chance that one of these new "people's republics- will forget who owns them.
An even greater danger to the internationalists of the CFR, however, is the fear that enough Americans will finally understand what they are doing and, in the age-old tradition of an angry electorate, "throw the rascals out" Faced with the possibility that any one of a hundred mini-nations might suddenly thumb its nose at you; or even worse, that the citizens of your own country might get wise to the game plan and give you the heave-ho, what do you do?
The answer has been obvious to the Rockefellers for more than fifty years: you create a one-world government which you will control, and you have that government rule all the others.
This has been the game plan for at least the past 54 years-ever since Daddy Oilbucks himself donated money to build the League of Nations headquarters in Geneva. Unfortunately for his own ambitions, there were still enough un-bought Senators and un-controlled newspapers in the United States to thwart his plans. His countrymen escaped the noose he and his comrades had prepared for them by refusing to join the budding World Government.
But the conspirators learned their lesson and did not make the same mistake again. They went to work at once, first, by creating the Council on Foreign Relations, and then by using it to soften up the US for the next World Government they would propose.*
*For more details about this whole plot, read None Dare Call It Conspiracy by this author.
The Insiders cloak their grasp for world political power in many idealistic cloches, and hide their true intentions behind a number of code phrases.
The current favorite seems to be "New World Order".
The expression is as old as the diabolical scheme of a secret society of the Eighteenth Century called the Illuminati, for a novus ordo seclorum -in fact, "new world order" is merely a translation of the Illuminati's avowed goal. (see ONE US DOLLAR BILL)
By 1945, the Rockefellers were ready. Grandson Nelson was one of the 74 CFR members at the founding meeting of the United Nations in San Francisco. Later, Nelson and his brothers donated the land for the United Nations complex along the East River in New York-possibly because they did not want the new headquarters of their World Government to be more than a short taxi-ride away from their penthouses.
Such a "New World Order" most emphatically does not mean an impotent debating society to the CFR. lt means an international regime that controls the world's armies, the world's weapons, its courts, its tax collectors, its schools, its governments and everything else. In succeeding chapters we will see exactly how the Rockefellers intend to nurture their embryonic structure until it has all of these powers, and more. For the moment, take our word that the " New World Order" these international wheeler-dealers have in mind would not be a republic, bound down by the chains of a constitution (as Jefferson phrased it), working to increase freedom for all of us, where the rights of every citizen are protected from a tyrannical Big Brother.
The "New World Order" the Rockefellers are planning will be a world dictatorship. Conservatives will call it Socialism or Communism, Liberals will call it Fascism. The label makes little difference; it will be the Gulag Archipelago on a worldwide basis.
Of course, proponents of such a World Government disguise their intentions behind all kinds of double talk. For example. Senator Alan Cranston of California (for many years the president of the Rockefeller-interlocked United World Federalists), defended his proposal for a world super-state with these words:
(World Government) Proposition 64 does not propose that we give up a shred of sovereignty. Plainly it proposes a means by which we can gain the ability to exercise our presently impotent sovereignty in the vital area of war prevention. It proposes that we create a limited world government and deposit our sovereignty there ....
Let us repeat that. Senator Cranston says we won't give up a shred of sovereignty- if we -create a limited world government and deposit our sovereignty there.
Lewis Carroll couldn't have said it better. George Orwell didn't even try; he called it "newspeak."
But while Senator Cranston and many of his colleagues play the string section in the orchestration for World Government, other CFR members trumpet other parts in this carefully rehearsed symphony. Nelson Rockefeller, for example, as an -altruistic millionaire," sounds the melody line for international taxation. In his book The Future of Federalism, first published in 1962 and then reprinted when he was nominated for the Vice Presidency, Nelson stated: "...I think the answer is some free-world super-national political being with the power to tax. . . "
Ask yourself this question: Does Nelson Rockefeller want to tax his wealth to aid the world's poor? If so, why doesn't he eliminate those expensive bureaucratic middlemen, and simply give his money to the downtrodden masses now ? Is it possible that he is trying to become richer-wads and wads richer, as the family representative put it - by dividing your wealth with himself?
During the confirmation hearings over his nomination as the nation's second unelected Vice President, a few courageous Congressmen, such as Representive John Ashbrook and Senator Jesse Helms, asked how it would be possible for Nelson to uphold an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States when he was already on record as supporting a World Government that would scrap our national charter. Such inquiries, however, were ignored by both Rockefeller and the national media. You would think that the issue of the survival of the United States might rate a line or two in your local Daily Bugle. But instead, all of the space was given to a planned farce about whether or not Rocky financed a derogatory book about a political opponent. That's like launching a newspaper crusade accusing jack the Ripper of throwing gum wrappers in the gutter and ignoring his penchant for slitting throats!
In The Future of Federalism, Noble Nels proclaimed:
No nation today can defend its freedom, or fulfill the needs and aspirations of its own people, from within its own borders or through its own resources alone .... And so the nation-state, standing alone, threatens, in many ways, to seem as anachronistic as the Greek city-states eventually became in ancient times.
Get it? The man who could not be elected to the White House, but managed to arrange an entrance there anyway, says that a free and independent United States is now anachronistic.
Webster's defines "anachronism" as something from a former age that is incongruous in the present.
Every effective World Government proponent learns early in the game some rhetorical tricks, such as calling black white. Nelson Rockefeller is no exception. In the same book, he suggests:
The federal idea, which our Founding Fathers applied in their historic act of political creation in the eighteenth century, can be applied in this twentieth century in the larger context of the world of free nations - if we will but match our forefathers in courage and vision.
Even Nelson Rockefeller knows that the American Revolution was a protest against exactly the sort of centralized power that he himself now advocates. The British Empire was the World Government of its day. Our forefathers did not want to be inter-dependent; they wanted to be independent. And they were willing to pay the price for their independence in the same coin that free men must always be willing to pay-blood and gold.
During the early 1950's, Nelson Rockefeller encouraged the wide distribution of a photograph of himself. It showed him holding a globe in his hands, and staring pensively into the future. Many people are convinced that the symbolism involved was not accidental.
Back to Contents
The Rockefeller Mediacracy
"Equally important is CFR's influence in the mass media .... They control or own major newspapers, magazines, radio and television networks ...''
The Rockefellers, as we have seen, have never been ones to leave public opinion to chance. That is why they have invested their charitable monies so judiciously in education and religion. It would be naive to think that the family would not exert every possible subtle and unsubtle influence over the nation's mass media.
In Chapter One we described how the Rockefellers use leverage to maximize the power of their investments in industry and finance. They follow the same principle when they buy influence over education. They do not pour money into local school board races; they put their bucks into the schools that train the teachers and they finance the writing of textbooks. Now that every public school is at the mercy of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (which Nelson Rockefeller created and ran under Eisenhower), the family couldn't care less who controls the local school board. In the field of religion, the money goes to key seminaries where ministers are trained and to the National Council of Churches which claims to represent forty million Protestants.
The Rockefellers grab, with all the gusto they've got, at the apex of whatever instrumentality they wish to control. The influence of the Council on Foreign Relations in the federal government is concentrated in the Executive Branch. That is where the action is-at the top. And so it is with Rockefeller control of the media. They are not interested in controlling the Burnt Mattress Weekly Blat; they go for the leaders in the field. In the old days, John D. sent his agents out to bribe editors and to buy up small papers, but that is very inefficient and antiquated in the electronic age. Now, the local papers are dependent on wire services and syndicated columnists to fill their news and editorial pages.
The Rockefellers have made sure that the real movers and shakers in the field of mass communications have been initiated into their CFR lodge. Admiral Ward informs us:
Equally important is CFR's influence in the mass media. Out of its 1,551 members, 60 were listed in official CFR reports as engaged in "journalism." An additional 61 were listed in -communications management," a highly descriptive title, because CFR members do indeed "manage" mass communications media, especially the influential segments. They control or own major newspapers, magazines, radio and television networks, and they control the most powerful companies in the book publishing business.
Few would argue the fact that the New York Times is the most influential newspaper in the U.S. "A significance of the Times," Times man James Reston has written, "is its multiplier effect. What appears in the Times automatically appears later in other places.
Concerning this multiplier effect, Alice Widener, columnist for Barron's, notes:
It is a fact that most editors and newsmen on the staffs of Life, Look, Time, Newsweek, etc., and most editors, reporters, and commentators at NBC, CBS, and ABC take their news and editorial cues from the New York Times. . Technically, it is a great newspaper; but it reports much of the news in conformity with its editorial policies.
The late Arthur Hays Sulzberger, chairman of the board of the New York Times, was a member of the CFR, and today there are at least 11 people in high positions with e Times who are CFR members. Sulzberger's son-in-law Orvil E. Dryfoos (CFR) succeeded him as publisher. The current publisher is Arthur Ochs " Punch" Sulzberger (CFR).
Other CFR members at the Times are: Harding Bancroft, Executive Vice President. James Reston, Vice President and columnist; A. M. Rosenthal, managing editor; Seymour Topping, assistant managing editor; Max Frankel, Sunday editor; Harrison Salisbury, associate editor; C. L. Sulzberger, columnist; and David Halberstam, columnist.
The Times is infamous for it's anti-anti-Communism and its support of socialist-fascist legislation. Its treatment of Stalin as a kindly liberal running a Russian branch of the ACLU should have made it a laughing stock, but didn't. Neither did the Times 'Herbert L. Matthews' (CFR) treatment of "Dr. Castro" as the George Washington of Cuba. Matthews swore repeatedly that Castro was anything but a Communist. Later, jokers commented that Castro could honestly say, "I got my job through the New York Times."
Needless to say, the support Nelson Rockefeller has received in his political career from the normally Democrat Times has been nearly total.
Running a close second to the New York Times in the prestige race is the Washington Post. Every Senator and Congressman, regardless of his party or political persuasion, has the Post on his desk each morning. Like the Times, the Post is read by the people who count when it comes to running the country. The Post's owner and publisher Katharine Graham is a member of the CFR, as are other top editors and management personnel. For years the Post has been referred to as "the uptown Daily Worker. The only time the Post has ever opposed "big government" is when it has been used to investigate Communism. When this has happened, the people at the Post frantically start waving the Constitution and babbling about "freedom of speech " - something they regularly suppress when it involves opposition to fascism-socialism or the Rockefellers.
One of the most influential members of the Post's staff is the incredibly talented truth-twister, cartoonist Herbert L. Block. Herblock's cartoons are syndicated daily in hundreds of papers. (And for every person, who reads the editorial page, there are probably a hundred who look at the lead cartoon.)
The Los Angeles Times is the West Coast's most important newspaper. Formerly staunchly conservative, the paper made a sharp Left turn fifteen if teen years ago and while it still retains its COP standing for protective coloring, it has become an organ for Establishment socialism. The Times is connected to the Rockefellers' CFR through board chairman Franklin Murphy and the fact that it owns a wire service in conjunction with the ultra-Liberal Washington Post. In addition, the Los Angeles Times owns the important Newsday on Long Island.
Other major newspapers with CFR interlocks are: the Arkansas Gazette, Des Moines Register & Tribune, Gannett Co. (publisher of newspapers in 40 cities from New York to Hawaii), The Houston Post, Minneapolis Star & Tribune, The Denver Post and Louisville Courier.*
Equally important has been CFR influence within the wire services. For many years Arthur Sulzberger was a director of the Associated Press while today Katharine Graham and John Cowles, Jr. are on the board. In addition, the New York Times has its own news service as does the Washington Post-Los Angeles Times. Every daily newspaper in the country uses one or more of these wire services for news and editorials.
Today it might be argued that television has superseded the newspaper as the primary creator of public opinion. Naturally, the Rockefellers have reached for control of the tube. William S. Paley, chairman of the board of CBS, is a CFR member as well as a trustee of the Ford Foundation. CBS has over 200 TV and 255 radio affiliates nationwide. CBS's president, Arthur Taylor, and Michael O'Neill of CBS publications are both members of the CFR. The former president of CBS was Dr. Frank Stanton (CFR), who is also a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation and Carnegie Institution. CBS directors who are CFR members include Roswell Gilpatrick, Courtney Brown, Henry Schacht, and William Burden. CBS (sometimes referred to as the Conspiracy Brainwashing System) newsmen who are CFR members include Charles C. Collingwood , Richard C. Hottelet, Marvin Kalb, Larry LeSueur, and Daniel Schorr.*
* There are more than thirty Committees on Foreign Relations in major US cities which the CFR says are -affiliated- with the Council. Members of these local CFR Committees staff scores of other newspapers and radio television stations.
The National Broadcasting Company is a subsidiary of the Radio Corporation of America. Until his recent retirement, the head of RCA-NBC was long-time CFR member David Sarnoff. Like CBS's Paley, Sarnoff was born in Russia. Under him, RCA was a major financial contributor to the CFR. Sarnoff spent much of his time promoting -foreign aid." Succeeding David Sarnoff at RCA is son Robert, a director of the Advertising Council, a spinoff of the CFR.
NBC newsmen John Chancellor and Irving R. Levine are CFR members, as are directors Thornton Bradshaw and John Petty.
The American Broadcasting Company is the Tag-Along Tooloo of the Big Three networks. It has 153 TV stations and specializes in escapist entertainment. It generally leaves the -documentary- propaganda to the Big Two. Its news audience amounts to only 7 million, while the other networks divide up the remaining 35 million news watchers. It does not have the CFR ties that CBS- and NBC do, but Chase Manhattan Bank controls 6.7 % of its stock-enough to give it a controlling interest. Chase, through its trust department, controls 14 % of CBS and 4.5 % of RCA. Instead of three competing television networks called NBC, CBS, and ABC, what we really have is the Rockefeller Broadcasting Company, the Rockefeller Broadcasting System, and the Rockefeller Broadcasting Consortium.
* Certainly no one was very surprised that CBS carried an almost unprecedented 2-hour propaganda show on "The Rockefellers- during prime viewing time on Friday, December 28, 1973. CBS used its star, Walter Cronkite, to narrate this spectacle, which was so sugary it must have sent thousands of diabetics scrambling for their insulin. Cronkite closed by saying that if any family had to have as much money and power as the Rockefellers, it was a good thing it was the Rockefellers! For a political candidate to buy that kind of television time would cost an astronomical sum. But Rocky has-friends. It didn't cost him a nickel.
Although the advent of television has somewhat diminished the influence of the slick magazines upon mass opinion, their importance is still significant. Until its demise (caused by advertisers switching to television), the nation's second-leading magazine in circulation was Look, with 7,750,000 copies distributed per issue. Look was owned by Cowles Communications, headed by Gardner and John Cowles. Both Cowles brothers are members of the Council on Foreign Relations.
The Cowles publishing empire encompasses Harper's a list of trade journals, a string of newspapers and television stations, and Harper & Row. Managing the operation for the Cowles family is Cass Canfield of the CFR and World Federalists. John Cowles is married to Canfield's daughter.
John Cowles runs the Minneapolis Tribune and Des Moines Register. He is a trustee of the Rockefeller-interlocked Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and of the Ford Foundation, and he is a member of the National Policy Board of American Assembly - a front created by Averell Harriman, the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, and the CFR to run propaganda seminars for leaders in American business, labor, communications, and the academy. He is on the Advisory Council of the US Committee for the US and the ultra-Leftist National Committee for an Effective Congress, which operates a "be kind to the Communists- lobby in Washington.
According to the American Legion's Firing Line of August 15, 1954, John Cowles joined twenty-three others signing telegrams to US Senators -asking support of measures which would stifle all "Congressional investigations of Communism." Little wonder, Brother John is very serious about merging America into a World Government with the Communists. The following is from a U.P.I. dispatch of June 7, 1959:
John Cowles, publisher of " The Minneapolis Star and Tribune " said today that the traditional American concept of national sovereignty is obsolete...
Gardner Cowles, chairman of the board of Cowles Communications, works hard to keep up with the Leftist activities of his brother. Besides being a member of the CFR, he is also a member of the Atlantic Union Committee.
Running Look magazine for the Cowles boys was William Atwood (CFR), who once wrote that we could "thank our lucky stars that Castro is not a Communist.
What Americans can thank their lucky stars about is that Look, which published more smears against anti Communists than any other publication outside the official Communist Press, went broke.
After nearly four decades as a leading opinion maker in America, Life bit the same dust as Look and for the same reason, despite a whopping circulation of 8.5 million. Life's corporate brother, Time, the leading news weekly, with a circulation of 4.2 million (as compared to Newsweek's 2.5 million and U. S. News & World Report's 1.8) is healthy, as are Time Inc.'s Sports Illustrated and Fortune.
The Time corporation recently bought its first newspaper, the Newark Evening News, for $34 million, and later purchased thirty-two more in the Chicago suburbs. It also owns Little, Brown & Company, an Establishment book publisher; 300,000 shares of Metro-Goldwyn Mayer; 600,000 acres of timberland; and, is part owner of media in South America, West Germany, Hong Kong, and Australia. In addition to all this, Time Inc. owns some thirty television stations in America, giving this mammoth conglomerate a voice in every form of mass media newspapers, magazines, movies, television, book publishing, and even teaching machines.
The builder of this empire was the late Henry Luce (CFR), whose impact on American thinking has been enormous. As Theodore White (CFR) has noted, " He revolutionized the thinking of American readers." Luce started his rise to publishing glory with loans from CFR Establishmentarians Thomas Lamont and Dwight Morrow (like Lamont, a J. P. Morgan partner), Harvey Firestone, E. Roland Harriman, and various members of the Harkness family (Standard Oil fortune). Their influence became especially apparent when he started his business magazine, Fortune, in the middle of the depression.
As John Kobler writes in The First Tycoon:
"It is a bemusing paradox that Fortune, the magazine of business, questioned the efficiency of the free-enterprise system and even took on a faint socialist tinge. Some of its editors and contributors stood far to the left...."
Apparently that is what Luce's Rockefeller connected financial angels wanted. And, although he later seemed to oppose F.D.R., Henry Luce cheered his accomplishments:
" I didn't vote for F.D.R. but it was all right with me that he won. He accomplished a lot of necessary social reform.-"
Jeanne Harmon, a former Life staff writer, tells in Such Is Life how tolerant Luce was of the Communist cell openly working at Time-Life. Mrs. Harmon relates how headlines were suddenly altered to convey meanings never intended, and how she and her fellow reporters were subjected to pressures to ignore some stories and push others. She also reveals that Whittaker Chambers was not welcomed back to Time-Life after he had testified against Alger Hiss (CFR).
Henry Luce was at one time actually considered an anti Communist. Yet he always bitterly opposed anyone like Robert Taft , General Douglas MacArthur, or Barry Goldwater, whom he thought might actually do something about Communist subversion in the United States. Luce's bogus anti-Communism was used to promote his World Government crusades. He was a member of the CFR and the Atlantic Union. Henry Luce was also a strong supporter of the United Nations, even after Alger Hiss's role in its establishment was revealed.
The Rockefeller Mediacracy
One night, probably in 1880, John Swinton, then the preeminent New York journalist, was the guest of honor at a banquet given him by the leaders of his craft. Someone who knew neither the press nor Swinton offered a toast to the independent press.
Swinton outraged his colleagues by replying:
(Source: Labor's Untold Story, by Richard O. Boyer and Herbert M. Morais, published by United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, NY, 1955/1979.)
In the late Fifties, Henry Luce switched from the "World Government to oppose Communism- line to the - peaceful co-existence and World Government with Communism- line, and Life went back to glorifying the Soviet Union as it had done during World War II. In 1966 , Luce took a group of 43 US businessmen behind the Iron Curtain to promote aid and trade with the enemy.
The chairman at Time Inc. is Andrew Heiskell (CFR), who is married to a New York Times heiress. Editor-in-chief of all Time Inc. publications is Hedley Donovan, a Rhodes Scholar, former reporter for the Limousine Leftist Washington Post, and a member of the CFR. Other CFR - Establishmentarians in the Time Inc. hierarchy are vice chairman Roy Larsen and directors John Gardner and Sol Linowitz.
The CFR members of Time Inc. also include James Linen, chairman of Time's executive committee; vice presidents Otto Fuerbringer and Barry Zorthian and directors Frank Pace, Jr. and Rawleigh Warner. So closely is Time Inc. now linked with the Rockefellers that the two jointly own a helicopter.
Rapidly closing the circulation gap with Time is News week.
Newsweek is owned by the Washington Post.
Chairman of the board Frederick Beebe is a member of the CFR as was the late owner, Katharine Graham's son Phillip. Retired editor Malcolm Muir is a CFR member, as are current editors Osborn Elliot and Robert Christopher, and vice president Nicholas Katzenbach. Other CFR men at Newsweek are editorial page editor Philip Geyelin, columnist Stewart Alsop, contributing editor Carl Spaatz, Atlanta Bureau chief William Anderson, and directors Katharine Graham and Kermit Lansner.
Other magazines in the CFR orbit are Business Week ,Atlantic Monthly, McCalls, World Review (formerly Saturday Review of Literature) and Scientific American
* One of the most curious publications to join the list of CFR interlocked journals is the ostensibly conservative magazine National Review. Although National Review has in the past claimed to be an opponent of the Eastern Liberal Establishment, it has never called attention to the conspiratorial activities of the Rockefeller Dynasty - and, in fact, has bitterly ridiculed anyone who suggested that there were any conspiratorial wolves mixed in with the Liberal sheep. Many well-informed conservatives were puzzled by National Review's refusal to consider the possibility that most of the liberal" mistakes - the magazine decried were actually carefully planned and deliberate acts; their bewilderment is bound to increase when they learn that editor-in-chief William F. Buckley, Jr., who has boasted of his personal friendship and warm admiration for such important Insiders as Henry Kissinger, and who enthusiastically endorsed Nelson Rockefeller for Secretary of Defense, is himself a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Book publishers with representatives on the CFR include :
MacMillan, Random House, Simon & Schuster, McCraw-Hill, Harper Brothers, IBM Publishing and Printing, Xerox Corp., Yale University Press and Harper & Row. Many of these specialize in publishing textbooks.
The Book of the Month Club's chairman Axel Rosin is a member of the CFR.
Given this kind of power over the media, it is hardly surprising that the Rockefeller family generally gets the powder puff treatment from the media. The interlocking CFR web woven by the Rockefellers explains why Nelson received such unanimous hosannas from the media during his hearings for the Vice Presidency. Though a few individual reporters were mildly critical of some facets of Nelson's career, the managers of the major papers and magazines positively drooled over themselves at the prospect of Sir Nelson the Fair being a heartbeat away from the Presidency. This is not exactly the tone used on Barry Goldwater in 1964. The one-eyed press is a Rockefeller-con trolled Cyclops.
There is yet another power the Dynasty has over the mass media. The average newspaper depends on advertising for from two-thirds to three-fourths of its revenues. Ike Mc Anally, for four decades a reporter with the New York Daily News, comments in Counter attack:
The most persistent influence upon the editorial policies of metropolitan newspapers today is the large advertiser. In many instances these advertisers are department stores. Some of these make open and contemptuous demands upon the front offices of newspapers to support the left wing. Others relay " suggestions. "
... Newspapers have surrendered unconditionally to left wing front office pressures, real and imaginary....
... They realize that if they write a story which might draw unfavorable reaction from, for instance, a department store, the city editor is apt to throw their copy back at them.... It is inevitable that with front offices swinging over, individual newsmen have more elastic principles.
Here's how it works. Every one of the major department store chains
" R. H. Macy & Company, Federated Department Stores, Gimbel Brothers, Sears, Roebuck & Company, J. C. Penney Company, The May Department Stores Company, Interstate Department Stores, and Allied Stores Corporation- has on its board of directors at least one officer who is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and/or a partner in the CFR interlocked international banking firms such as Kuhn, Loeb; Lazard Freres; Lehman Brothers; Dillon, Read & Company; or Coldman Sachs.
Department stores, of course, are not the only buyers of advertising space. Oil companies are also biggies. So are banks. As are the myriad of corporations listed in the early part of this book as under Rockefeller family domination. Establishment adventurers will, of course, permit a paper to take a moderately conservative stand, but it is taboo to discuss the Rockefeller Establishment and its links with the International Communist Conspiracy.
With all of this membership in America's key mass media, it can hardly be an accident that few people know about the Council on Foreign Relations. If the Rockefellers wanted publicity for the CFR you can bet there would be feature spreads in Time and Newsweek plus a " 60 Minute- CBS Special narrated by Walter Cronkite. If you check The Readers Guide to Periodical
Literature at your local library, you will find but a single listing on the CFR in over 50 years. And that in the relatively obscure Atlantic Monthly. A check of newspaper files shows that only two feature articles on this incredibly powerful organization have appeared, one in the Christian Science Monitor and one in the New York Times. As we said before, such anonymity can hardly be accidental.
The involvement of the Rockefellers with the media has multi-multi implications. One is that the Rockefeller gang's plans for monopolistic World Government are never, but never, discussed in the machines of mass misinformation. The media decides what the issues will be in the country. They can turn on the poverty issue or turn it off. The same holds true for population explosion, pollution, peace, détente, or whatever. We have in this country what columnist Kevin Phillips has termed a mediacracy.
The mediacracy can take a man like Ralph Nader and make him an instant folk hero. Or they can take an enemy of the Rockefellers and create the image that he is a cretin, a buffoon, a bigot, or a dangerous paranoid.
The use of psychology and propaganda, or if you will, brainwashing, is not a Communist invention. lt was developed in the West in such places as the Rockefeller financed Tavistock Institute in England. While the Communists have used these tools for mindbending, so have the Rockefellers. The hidden persuaders from Madison Avenue, the Rand Corp. think-tank or Hudson Institute, can and do manipulate public opinion. The Establishment elitists refer to it as" the engineering of consent." That means we are made to think the manacles they are slipping on our wrists are love bracelets. The techniques developed by the Rockefeller "Thought Trust " have just been adopted and used more brutally by the Communists.
With money the Rockefellers gained control of the media. With the media the family gained control over public opinion. With control over public opinion they gained control of politics. And with control of politics, they are taking control of the nation.
Back to Contents
Back to The Global Media Control
Surrender by Consent
"We shall have world government whether or not you like it - by conquest or consent.''
As we have seen in the preceding chapter, there can be absolutely no doubt that the major Rockefeller goal today is the creation of a "New World Order" a one-world government that would control all of mankind. But, wanting a Global Superstate and getting one are two different things. How do the Rockefellers expect to round up all of us cows and herd us into their World Government corral?
The Rockefellers know that the roads to World Government can be as varied as human hopes, fears, ambitions, ignorance and greed. And since the Rockefellers' never put all of their financial or political eggs into one basket, you will not be surprised to learn that they are involved in promoting every conceivable route to a World Superstate. If there is an approach they have overlooked, we can't think of it. (And if you can, please don't mention it out loud-or the New York Times might announce tomorrow that the Council on Foreign Relations or a Rockefeller Foundation grant is supporting it.)
A complete listing of all organizations, movements, publications, and programs supporting World Government, which in turn are managed behind the scenes by the Rockefeller-CFR axis, would fill a book the size of the Los Angeles area telephone directory. Obviously, we can mention only a few of the more important trails along the Rockefellers' drive toward World Government.
Certainly the most visible pathway toward World Government is the organization that was created in 1945 by the Rockefellers for precisely this purpose - the United Nations. As we shall see in the next chapter, the controlled media have deliberately created a myth that the UN is a meaningless debating society. We are supposed to believe that the Rockefellers have spent millions on an organization that is, at best, an expensive but relatively harmless irritant. This public image of the UN has been invaluable to the global master planners, and it is about as accurate as an itinerant peddler's claim for his sure-fire snake oil potion.
If the Rockefeller thought-controllers can persuade enough Americans to accept voluntarily the surrender of US sovereignty to the United Nations, their long campaign for World Government will be over. The -New World Order -will have arrived- with all the hoopla of a Wall Street ticker tape parade. The Rockefellers would be willing to pay almost any price for such a bloodless coup d'etat. In fact, they are paying millions of dollars every year to finance just such a possibility.
Here are just a few of the organizations in the United States which are financed and/or directed by the Rockefeller - CFR combine that are actively promoting the voluntary demise of American independence.
American Association for the United Nations
American Friends Service Committee
Arden House Group
Center for Advanced Study in Behavioral Sciences
Center of Diplomacy and Foreign Policy
Citizens Committee for International Development
Committees on Foreign Relations
Committee for Economic Development
Council on Foreign Relations
Federation of World Governments
Foreign Policy Association
Institute of International Education
Institute for World Order
National Planning Association US National Commission
The Trilateral Commission World Affairs Council
United World Federalists
If you recognize more than half of this list, congratulations!
You are already well-informed about this Rockefeller road to serfdom. But if most of these names are new to you, we respectfully suggest that you have some homework to do. And while doing it, please remember that some of the most innocent sounding groups, or some apparently ineffective body whose avowed purposes seem totally non-political, may be one of the most dangerous tentacles on the whole World Government octopus.
Such is the case with one of the oldest organizations mentioned above, Atlantic Union. It is the grandaddy of regional government schemes, composed of those who believe that getting half a loaf is half way to getting a whole loaf. Atlantic Unionists argue that regional government is a necessary way station on the road to total World Government. Until Rocky's boy Henry sprung détente on them, Atlantic Union was also the organization for one-worlders who claimed to be anti-Communists. (And, indeed, there were some legitimate anti Communists in the group.)
The Atlantic Unionists believe that our War of Independence was all a ghastly mistake. This may seem a little odd as we prepare to celebrate the nation's bicentennial, but there are as many unreconstructed Tories on Wall Street as there are unreconstructed secessionists in Alabama.
The idea of Atlantic Union had its origin in the fertile brain of an Englishman named Cecil Rhodes, whose dream was to see the United States re-annexed to the British Empire. To this end he established the Rhodes Foundation, providing for the education in England of bright young Americans.
In 1939, a Rhodes Scholar named Clarence Streit wrote a book called Union Now, which advocated a gradual approach to final world union by way of regional unions, starting with the union between the US and Britain. Committees were set up all over America, and Mr. Streit reported that over two million Americans had signed petitions asking for union with Britain.
In Streit's own words, Atlantic Union, now expanded to include Western Europe, was the first step towards total world government:
" It [Union Now] proclaimed the need of world government and insisted that no country needed this more urgently than the United States.
Streit, who has been a close associate of Communists and socialists all his adult life, has no hostility towards collectivism. He said in Union Now:
- Democracy not only allows mankind to choose freely between capitalism and collectivism, but it includes Marxist governments."
In his pamphlets Streit asks the question:" Does the rise of socialism in some Western European democracies prevent our federating with them?" He answers with an emphatic "No !"
In March 1949, Federal Union set up a political-action unit called the Atlantic Union Committee. The first president of this Committee was former Supreme Court justice Owen J. Roberts, who said he considers national sovereignty a " silly shibboleth."
More than twenty years ago the Los Angeles Examiner described what Atlantic Union would mean to America:
They [the nations of Western Europe] would impose their socialism in place of our republican self-government, extract taxes from us as they pleased, draft our men for their armies and our women for their factories, appropriate bulk of our productive wealth for their own enrichment.
How can any Senator or Representative elected to represent the people of the United States bring himself to advocate so clear a policy of national self-destruction?
The goals of Atlantic Union have not changed. But very few newspapers are as courageous or outspoken anymore. Bucking the Rockefellers is not the way to build your advertising revenue.
Less than a dozen years after its founding, the Atlantic Union Committee had grown to 871 wealthy and influential members, 107 of whom were members of the CFR. Today it has some 2,000 members.
An Atlantic Union Resolution which would, in effect, repeal the Declaration of independence, was first introduced in Congress in 1949. It has been reintroduced every year since, but until recently never received much attention-despite its endorsement by such Rockefeller CFR stalwarts as Richard Nixon, Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Dwight Eisenhower, Adlai Stevenson, John Foster Dulles, Jacob Javits, William Fulbright, Eugene McCarthy, and Henry Kissinger.
In 1975, the Atlantic Union resolution was once more introduced into the House of Representatives. Incredibly, 111 Congressmen (38 more sponsors than the resolution ever had before), all sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, officially co-sponsored the measure which would supersede our Constitution!
According to the bill's chief sponsor, Illinois Republican Paul Findley:
This proposal never before had so much vigorous fresh blood as it has today. Nearly half of its sponsors are new 59 to be exact. Of these, 26 are freshmen, elected last November; 13 others voted for it when it was stalled on the floor last year by the thin majority of 210 to 197. Most significant of all, 10 of those who voted against it two years ago and still remain in the House are sponsoring it today; 56 of the 210 who opposed it in 1973 are no longer among the, members of the House.
In 1973, the Atlantic Union resolution missed passing by a scant 13 votes. As Findley gloated, many of those who voted against it are now gone and several others who once opposed the measure have seen the Rockefeller handwriting on the wall and have become sponsors.
As you probably suspect, Atlantic Union is a Rockefeller operation.
The Oilbucks Gang has been tied to Atlantic federation for some 35 years. In fact, when Nelson Rockefeller was given the Atlantic Union's highest honor: the Pioneer Award, in 1964, Clarence Streit told the assembled dignitaries at the presentation that Nelson Rockefeller had saved the organization from a dangerous division back in 1939. lt seems that the two strongest chapters, one in New York City and the other in Washington, were at loggerheads on where the group's headquarters would be established.
Both wanted it in their own city. Ever the politician. Streit wanted to satisfy both factions, but he didn't have the shekels to finance such an elaborate operation. lt was at that moment the Rockefeller cavalry came galloping to the rescue. Nelson promised to provide an entire floor at 10 East 40 th Street, New York City, rent free.
Twenty-five years later, it was Rocky's open espousal of ending American independence, expressed in his book Future of Federalism. that gave many secret World Government supporters in Congress the courage to speak up.
According to Streit:
'The Future of Federalism- came at a time when other US political leaders and many of our best friends in Congress were afraid even to mention such words as "federal" or " union-in connection with Atlantica, lest they arouse controversy and opposition from misguided
The Rockefeller family has provided free rental for the Atlantic Union headquarters, and Streit informs us that this fact had been kept a secret for 25 years. Even this admission was made at a private dinner of Insiders. You will find no mention of this incredible fact in the newspapers the next day. (Streit's disclosure appeared in their own publication, and was later placed in the Congressional Record for all to see by a - misguided patrioteer.-)
You are not supposed to know that the richest family in the country wants to abolish the independence of the United States.
For those Americans willing to go directly into the Great Merger with the Communists, without shilly-shallying around with regional intermediaries, the Rockefeller-CFR combine has several organizations available to support. The most blatant, as well as the most successful, is probably the United World Federalists (UWF). The United World Federalists was formed in 1947 by two CFR stalwarts, Norman Cousins and James P. Warburg (whose statement, promising world government" by consent or conquest," began this chapter). One of the most famous slogans of this Rockefeller front was" One world or none.
The UWF has been particularly effective at appealing to the idealism of youthful Americans, through chapters on many high school and college campuses, with its promise of "world peace through world law." Most of these young members apparently assume that a World Government created and controlled by Insiders would protect individual rights, guarantee freedom of the press, respect religious beliefs and practices, and so on. Naturally, the UWF says nothing to disillusion them.
The United World Federalists has been a CFR operation since it was created, more than 25 years ago, by amalgamating three small organizations, the World Federalists, Student Federalists, and Americans United for World Government. Its membership has been heavily interlocked with that of the CFR from the day it began. Yet so successful has been the Rockefeller-CFR public relations job on behalf of the UWF that today it can-and does-promote virtually every major plank of the Communist Party, without losing an ounce of its Establishment-created-respectability."
The first president of the United World Federalists was Cord Meyer Jr., who, of course, was also a member of the CFR.
In a very curious book called Peace or Anarchy, Meyer touted the usual Insider line that the United States should be thrilled to disarm itself and merge into a -Federated World Government" under the control of the United Nations. And here is the kind of "peace" the UWF president wanted to see established:
... once having joined the One-World Federated Government no nation could secede or revolt ... because with the Atom Bomb in its possession the Federal Government [of the World] would blow that nation off the face of the earth.
Significantly, when he stepped down as UWF president, Meyer slid into a top position with another Rockefeller organization, the Central Intelligence Agency. His activities since then have been cloaked in a veil of secrecy, but one can only assume that his vision of an all powerful World Government, happily blowing recalcitrant nations" off the face of the earth," has not changed.
In recent decades, UWF* supporters have become much more subtle in their advocacy of a World Superstate. The game is still the same, but the names have been changed to protect the guilty. They are now selected by Rockefeller's PR boys on Madison Avenue to be much more palatable to the public. You will not, for example, find a UWF member today stating the group's goals quite as crudely as a UWF professor named Milton Mayer did in 1949, when he said: " We must haul down the American flag ... haul it down, stamp on it, spit on it." The Rockefellers, you understand, never spit; they expectorate.
Although less than one American in a thousand would consider for a moment the suggestion that his political leaders have actually advocated abandoning our independence, the truth is that the UWF has been endorsed by such big-name politicos as Harry Truman, Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey, Richard Nixon, Jacob Javits, Dwight Eisenhower, Frank Church, justice William 0. Douglas, and Ronald Reagan.
For decades Atlantic Union and United World Federalists and scores of less-effective Rockefeller fronts have followed a course of patient gradualism. They do not expect Americans to accept World Government overnight like water dripping on a rock, they plan to wear down all opposition in time.
* To make their commitment to globalism, not nationalism, even clearer, the UWF changed its name in 1969 to World Federalists, USA
But there are increasing indications that the leaders of he conspiratorial internationalists are running out of patience. Sure, they will permit the UWF and assorted cherries to continue on their merry way, urging us to put he gun to our collective heads and pull the trigger-all the while promising us we'll be better off for the experience, of course. But as we shall see in the next chapter, some of he top brass have contingency plans well prepared to move considerably faster should it become necessary.
One development that may signal more severe storms on the horizon was the formation, more than two years ago, of a new entity called "The Trilateral Commission." The founding meeting was called by David Rockefeller, the number one man in the Council on Foreign Relations and Chairman of the Board of Chase Manhattan Bank. When David asks some 200 leading bankers, businessmen, politicians, and labor leaders throughout the world to join him in forming a multi-national planning commission, you can be certain that the invitation has all of the force of a royal command.
Long-time Rockefeller watchers know that major shifts in the internationalists' plans are frequently signaled by brief articles in the New York Times. So when that Insiders' house organ mentioned in a small dispatch on June 18, 1974,that" the lives and fortunes of large numbers of human beings hang upon the outcome of decisions taken by a small handful of national leaders- on the Trilateral Commission, it was time to pay more attention -a lot more attention- to the group. If your life hangs upon (a rather strong choice of words for so august a publication as the Times) the deliberations and decisions of this commission, it is time to find out what they are deciding.
The tip-off came with the appointment of Zbigniew Brzezinski as a director of the commission. Shortly after the formation of the Trilateral Commission, the new director (who is an officer of the CFR) wrote an article for the CFR's official journal, Foreign Affairs, in which he said:
The world is not likely to unite [willingly] behind a common ideology or a super-government. The only practical hope is that it will now respond to a common concern for its own survival.
.... The Atlantic [Union] concept was a creative response to the problems of the cold war era. Today, the Atlantic framework is too narrow to encompass the multitude of challenges-and opportunities -that confront the international community. lt is a recognition of this reality to propose ... that the active promotion of such trilateral cooperation must now become the central priority of U.S. policy.
In other words, Brzezinski says it's time to forget about the rather open and above-board approach to world government proposed by Atlantic Union. Voluntary union will not be achieved in time; it's time to try another approach. What is that " other approach " ? Simply stated, it is to impose the very same controls over nations that World Government advocates propose, but this time to do it under the guise of solving economic, ecological, or energy problems.
The chairman of The Trilateral Commission is Gerard C. Smith, another CFR member and former director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.* Here is how he describes the purpose of The Trilateral Commission:
The United States, Western Europe, and Japan face a common condition. They are the major industrial areas of the world, and they share common concerns about the problems of environment and modern industrial society.
They jointly share a global responsibility and we think their relations are threatened by domestic concerns which tend to drive the regions apart. (Emphasis added.)
*The significance of Smith leaving the Arms Control and Disarmament. Agency to run this new Rockefeller operation should not be overlooked. The Disarmament Agency is a key part of the Insiders` program for a World Superstate. (See Chapter Eight below.) For Smith to step down from such a major post means the Trilateral Commission must really be important.
According to Smith, the problems each country is facing may pose a serious obstacle to the establishment of a " New World Order." There is a danger that some nations may become so concerned about solving their own problems (such as having enough fuel to keep their factories going and enough food to feed their citizens), that they will lose sight of the larger objective-building World Government.
The first meeting of David Rockefeller's new group was held in Tokyo on October 21-23, 1973. Sixty-five persons were listed as North American members. Of those, thirty five are also members of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Six position papers, called "The Triangle Papers," have been issued so far by the Commission: two from the Tokyo meeting in October 1973, three from a meeting in Brussels in June 1974,and one from a Washington, D.C. meeting in December 1974. If the -Triangle Papers- are any indication, we can look for four major thrusts toward world economic controls: The first, toward a - renovated world monetary system"; the second, involving the looting of our resources for the further radicalization of -have-not- nations; the third, toward stepped-up trade with the Communists; and the fourth, toward milking the energy crisis for greater international controls.
So if you've been wondering what the next move of the World Government Insiders will be along the road to surrender by consent-they've already made it. The Trilateral Commission has been created by David Rockefeller to guide his fellow internationalists in using their private influence to make certain their governments remain on the proper public course-a headlong rush toward the Great Merger.
And the country that ignores its warnings, and pays too much attention to its -domestic- concerns, may find itself in a food/fuel/financial crisis that will make the Great Depression seem like an idyllic trek through the Promised Land.
Back to Contents
Surrender by Conquest
"In Stage III [of disarmament] progressive controlled disarmament ... would proceed to a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened UN Peace Force and all international disputes would be settled according to agreed principles of international conduct .... The Peace-keeping capabilities of the United Nations would be sufficiently strong and the obligations of all states under such arrangements sufficiently far reaching as to assure peace and the just settlement of differences in a disarmed world.''
On his return from Vladivostok, USSR, where he had signed an agreement drafted at the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT), President Ford announced in a typically mixed metaphor that he had" put a cap- on the arms race. In the light of previous deals with the Communists, such a pronouncement was incredible. It conjured up memories of Chamberlain, newly arrived from Munich, standing on the sacred ground in which his head was buried and announcing through the sand that the treaty in his hand was proof we would have" peace in our time.-
While the Liberal press was singing hosannas to SALT II as the pinnacle of détente (French for both a trigger and a lessening of tensions), the Communists were gobbling up territory faster than the Oklahoma Sooners. Using Soviet arms, the Reds were sweeping through Cambodia and South Vietnam. With the planned opening of Suez, they were preparing to link their naval forces in the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean. And. Portugal, a long-time American ally, was being converted into a Soviet outpost in Western Europe. If this is détente, bring back the Cold War.
The road toward SALT began at the dawn of the nuclear age, when Leftist scientists and academics, standing at the wailing wall of disarmament, began to bemoan their fear that America's superior nuclear capacity would somehow frighten a worried Soviet Union into launching a major war. The "solution " to this peril begins with the Pugwash Conferences and might conclude with the forced surrender of a disarmed US
In 1955,the Parliamentary Association for World Government issued a call for a series of "Conferences on Science and World Affairs" between Russian and American scientists and intellectuals. The first of these was held in 1957 at the home of Russophile Cyrus Eaton in Pugwash, Nova Scotia. Eaton, who began his career a secretary to John D. Rockefeller and is now a business partner of the Rockefellers in promoting Red trade, earned the Lenin Peace Prize for fronting the deal and financing the first five Conferences.
Since then, more than twenty have been held, most of them outside the United States All have been financed by the tax-exempt Rockefeller CFR foundations.
"On September 23, 1960,three years after the first Pugwash Conference, the Soviets presented a plan for total and complete disarmament - to the United Nations. It called for a systematic reduction in arms by major powers of the world. The so-called "Soviet plan" immediately became the beneficiary of extremely influential American support, when a group of powerful proponents of disarmament within the CFR endorsed it.
This was no mere happenstance. A secret CFR disarmament program, entitled "Study No.7," was made public a few months later. Prepared by the CFR for the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, " Study No.7" argued that the United States " must: (1) search for an international order ... in which many policies are jointly undertaken by ... states with differing political, economic and social systems, and including states labeling themselves as 'socialist."' [That is, Communist.] In order to build such a "new international order,' " the CFR said, we must -maintain and gradually increase the authority of the UN," and "conduct serious negotiations to achieve international agreement on limitation, reduction and control of armaments.-
And here is the amazing part: This CFR position paper had preceded the Soviet proposal of September 23, 1960, by nearly a year. Pugwashed or not, the two schemes were almost identical!
This Pugwash-CFR conspiracy is one of the most brilliant achievements in psychological warfare since the Trojan Horse. While Americans were being told of the horrors of nuclear war and the supposed advantages of limiting our defenses, the Russians were arming to the teeth.
lt was in June of 1964 that the Ford Foundation, already famous for bankrolling Rockefeller- approved fascist socialist causes, put up $325,000 for a Pugwash production called the "Joint US - USSR Study Group in Disarmament."
The climate which Rockefeller partner Cyrus Eaton's Pugwash group and the CFR had created was by now well established. Advocates of the New World Order began to crow that World Government was at last in sight.
In September of 1961, the Department of State released Publication 7277, entitled : Freedom From War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World.
It was a three-stage program which provided:
In Stage III progressive controlled disarmament and continuously developing principles and procedures of international law would proceed to a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened UN Peace Force and all international disputes would be settled according to agreed principles of international conduct. . . .
* Strategy for the Sixties, Jay Cerf and Walter Pozen, New York Praeger, Inc., 1961.p92 THE ROCKEFELLER FILE
The peacekeeping capabilities of the United Nations would be sufficiently strong and the obligations of all states under such arrangements sufficiently far reaching as to assure peace and the just settlement of differences in a disarmed world.
The same month that State Department Publication 7277 was issued, the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency was created by Congress. Within forty-eight hours the new Agency presented its disarmament scheme to the United Nations. Naturally, it was a carbon copy of the CFR-Soviet-Pugwash proposal presented to the UN by the Communists the year before While the newspapers and TV have prattled endlessly about disarmament, nary a word has been said about the other side of the coin: all such proposals call for arming the United Nations! This apparently is the best-kept secret since the formula for Coca-Cola.
In October of 1968 the US Disarmament Agency issued a revised proposal, entitled : Arms Control and National Security, which declared:
Since 1959, the agreed ultimate goal of the negotiations has been general and complete disarmament, i.e., the total elimination of all armed forces and armaments except those needed to maintain internal order within states and to furnish the United Nations with peace forces. . . . While the reductions were taking place, a UN peace force would be established and developed, and, by the time the plan was completed, it would be so strong that no nation could challenge it.
Notice that the document said, "Since1959" The US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency was no established until September 1961. But it was in 1959 that the CFR " Study No.7 " was prepared and its content were transmitted to the Soviets.
How successful have these New World Order disarmers been in implementing their plans? What has happened to our military strength since disarmament was accepted as official US Government policy? The first Secretary of Defense to implement this policy was CFR member Robert 5. McNamara, Secretary of Defense from 1961 through 1968.
In The Betrayers, Phyllis Schlafly and Chester Ward discuss McNamara's wrecking job. Where Robert McNamara left office, they note, he had:
... reduced our nuclear striking force by 50% while the Soviets had increased theirs by 300%.
... caused the US to lose its lead in nuclear delivery vehicles.
... scrapped 3/4 of our multi megaton missiles.
... cut back the originally planned 2,000 Minutemen to 1,000.
... destroyed all our intermediate and medium-range missiles.
... canceled our 24-megaton bomb.
... scrapped 1,455 of 2,710 bombers left over from the Eisenhower Administration.
... disarmed 600 of the remaining bombers of their strategic nuclear weapons.
... frozen the number of Polaris subs at 41, refusing to build any more missile-firing submarines.
... refused to allow development of any new weapons systems except the TFX (F-111).
... canceled Skybolt, Pluto, Dynasoar and Orian [missile systems].
In fact, McNamara destroyed more operational US strategic weapons that the Soviets could have destroyed in a full-scale nuclear attack!
Supporting McNamara's efforts at unilateral disarmament were CFR members John J. McCloy and Willian C. Foster. McCloy, who preceded David Rockefeller a chairman of the board of both the CFR and the family' piggy bank, Chase Manhattan, was picked by President John F. Kennedy to be chairman of the General Advisor, Committee for the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, a post which he still holds. William C. Foster was appointed director of the Agency. In 1969, Foster was replaced as director by Gerard C. Smith, another CFR member. Smith's successor in 1973 was Fred Ikle who (this will probably not surprise you) is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
John J. McCloy's current General Advisory Committee is composed of 1. W. Abel, Dr. Harold Brown (CFR), William C. Foster (CFR), Kermit Cordon (CFR), Dr. James R. Killian, General Lauris Norstad (CFR), Dr. Jack Ruina (CFR), Dean Rusk (CFR), William Scranton, Dr. John Archibald Wheeler, and, Judith A. Cole, staff director.
What is going on here, alas, is all too simple. The Rockefeller - Establishment Insiders of the Council on Foreign Relations are working to weaken America's defensive capacity so the Soviets can "catch up." This policy, they believe, will lead eventually to a merger of political and economic interests- what the CFR calls a New World Order.
This is not academic skylarking. It is, as we have seen, official US policy. The operative phases of this scheme began in earnest when CFR Insiders persuaded President Lyndon Johnson to propose the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) in 1966. The SALT talks to negotiate a first disarmament treaty were scheduled for July 1968. They were postponed until November 1969 because the Soviets were busy with their invasion of Czechoslovakia-only two weeks after Soviet officials signed the Declaration of Bratislava, guaranteeing Czech independence!
We have made such great progress at SALT that when the first meetings were scheduled in 1968, the Soviets had only 850 long-range missiles while the US had 1,054. But following the seventh SALT meeting, when President Nixon signed accords in Moscow on May 26, 1972, the Soviets had 1,618 ICBMs either deployed or under construction while we, in turn, still had 1,054 - the same number as in 1968. This, in short, is the way we have negotiated. We have frozen production and exported US technology to permit the Kremlin first to catch up, and then to surpass us.
What trends must we stop to prevent an ultimatum from the Soviets? To begin with, there is the effort to limit defense spending- especially in the area of strategic weapons development.
In the 1974 Economic Report of the President we learn that in 1953 our total government spending as a %age of national income was 33.2 %. That included 16 % for domestic spending, including welfare, etc. Twenty years later, in 1973, government spending had risen to 38.6 % of the national income. During this time the - better Red than deadboys hid cut defense back to 7 % of the national income while increasing domestic spending to 31.6 %. You might tap dance through those statistical tulips again. They confirm that the CFR plan is fully operative-that we are being prepared for the New World Order by being collectivized and disarmed at the same time.
Nor do those figures tell the whole story. With the advent of our -professional- Armed Forces, fifty-six % of the defense budget is now going for salaries. Congressman Larry McDonald (D.-Ca.) of the House Armed Services Committee observes:
The Liberals in Congress are constantly calling for the slashing of the -bloated- Defense budget so they can further increase Welfare spending. Since we cannot cut salaries, about the only thing which can be cut is hardware. Trimming the so-called fat actually turns out to be slicing out bone and muscle. If we had a war, we would have lots of men in uniform, but they wouldn't have adequate equipment with which to fight.
This result is a tribute to the skullduggery and conspiracy of the Insiders of the Rockefeller Council on Foreign Relations who planned it that way. Our -military industrial complex- had to be destroyed to make Soviet superiority - more plausible. It has, as a result, been literally starved to death on purpose.
Of course all of this was anticipated when President Nixon signed the SALT I agreement in Moscow back in May of 1972. Even the very -Liberal- Senator Henry Jackson (D.Wash.) admitted: -Simply put, the agreement gives the Soviets more of everything: more light ICBMs, more heavy ICBMs, more submarine-launched missiles, more submarines, more payload, even more ABM radars.
In no area covered in the agreement is the United States permitted to maintain parity with the Soviet Union.-
It is all too obvious that SALT has not limited the Soviets in any way. The US is being disarmed while the Communists are being given a first-strike Ultimatum Force.*
* The fact that SALT is merely an extension of the 7277 Disarmament Plan was acknowledged in this agreement which stated: The USA and the USSR regard as the ultimate objective of their efforts the achievement of general and complete disarmament and the establishment of an effective system of international security in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Remember the steel rolling plants we sold the Soviets on credit? Remember the aluminium factories the Rockefeller-Eaton Axis is building in Eastern Europe? And remember the Kama River truck factory, financed by David Rockefeller's Chase Manhattan Bank, which will be the largest in the world, covering some forty square miles? Truck factories, of course, are where tanks are built.
Now, ask yourself this question: If the Soviets are really sincere about détente and peaceful coexistence, why are they arming at such breakneck speed? Why aren't they diverting that spending into desperately needed consumer goods? And why is Henry Kissinger letting them get away with it? The answer is that the Comrades are preparing to deliver the New World Order ultimatum in case Americans refuse to lay down and play dead. In other words, the traps have been set for world government by consent and by conquest.
The Communists are working hand-in-hand with our Establishment Insiders. When the former are powerful enough, the latter will insist we must scrap our national sovereignty and merge into a New World Order-our survival will require it!
If we have not the will to resist-to fight for national sovereignty-then we have no deterrent at all. We invite the nuclear ultimatum. And we are, indeed, in grave danger. The last SALT agreement arranged for a -working meeting- between President Ford and Soviet Party Leader Leonid Brezhnev in Vladivostok, November 23 and 24, 1974, after the President had visited Japan and South Korea to make "assurances." As usual, the trusted Dr. Kissinger arrived early to " work out the details." The President dutifully signed what was put in front of him.
The details, as it turned out, limit the US and Soviets to 2,400 land and sea-based missiles and long-range bombers through 1985. The United States, we are told in Newsweek for December 9, 1974, has some 2,206 intercontinental missiles (ICBMs), submarine-based missiles (SLBMs), and long-range bombers. The Soviets, we are assured, have deployed 2,375 such missiles and bombers. In addition, we agreed to equip only 1,320 missiles with MIRV warheads.
After dispatching Henry Kissinger to Peking to brief the Red Chinese, President Ford returned home to present his version of the summit to twenty-six Congressional leaders. Back in Washington the President crowed:
" We put a firm ceiling on the strategic-arms race. What we have done," he stated with a straight face," is to set firm and equal limits on the strategic forces of each side, thus preventing an arms race ... Vladivostok is a breakthrough for peace ... future generations will thank us.-
The National Observer for December 14, 1974, expressed amazement:
" With such fanciful descriptions Mr. Ford, he of the plain word and honest face, is beguiling us-or has been beguiled and is merely repeating the phrases the beguilers used on him.-
The prestigious Aviation Week & Space Technology for December 9, 1974, warned:
"The Vladivostok agreement puts a cap on nothing. The new SALT buzzword about 'putting a cap on the arms race' is just some more White House press agentry that would be ludicrous if it had not proved so disastrous to the Nixon Administration and US interests at past summits."
So there you have it. Rockefeller Contingency Plan II - be used in the event that the American people cannot be persuaded to accept the surrender of US sovereignty to their New World Order - will be the blunt ultimatum: let the UN run the whole show, or those nasty Communist will blast us all to bits.
Step One was a massive media campaign, brainwashing the public into abject horror at the thought of nuclear war
Step Two was to increase Soviet military muscle (more on this in the next chapter), to lend some credence to Soviet claims of nuclear power.
Step Three was to make certain the US Armed Force were not permitted to advance technologically. The development of new weapons systems was forbidden; existing armaments were allowed to rust.
Step Four was to win Congressional approval for the Soviet-CFR planned disarmament scheme. What was approved wasn't disarmament at all; it was a proposal to arm a World Government police force by taking weapon from the US and giving them to the UN.
Steps One through Three have already been implemented. And even while you are reading this Insiders in New York, Washington, Geneva, and London are working to convert Step Four from a plan to a fact '
As the CFR's James Warburg declared to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee twenty-five years ago:" We will have world government whether or not you like it-by conquest or consent." Warburg and his fellow conspirators have made certain that whichever deck is used to deal the next hands, the cards have already been stacked against us.
Back to Contents