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 McGovern. 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 guber natorial 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 mininations 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.