Friday, July 12: Philadelphia, PA 4:15pm - At Netroots Nation
Location: PA Convention Center, 1101 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA
Become a Thom Supporter- Click the Patreon button
Council on Foreign Relations: De Facto Government of the United States Related Topics Congress Failed Fiscal; Congress failed oversight, Constitutional Amendment Congress Failed Oversight Democracy; Constitutional Amendments; Council On Foreign Relations; Democrat In Name Only; Economy Recession; Economy-Economics- US; Federal Housing Administration - FHA; Federal Reserve; Health Care Socialized-Nationalized;
The Council on Foreign Relations has almost 4700 members. Almost all of America's leadership has come from this small group. That includes our presidents and their advisers, cabinet members, ambassadors, board members of the Federal Reserve System, directors of the largest banks and investment houses, presidents of universities and heads of metropolitan newspapers, news services, and TV networks. It is not an exaggeration to describe this group as the hidden government of the United States. All of its members are members of the government. It is the government of the United States. Annual membership fees are $25,000 and are deductible. Members also receive unlimited deductibility on all contributions they make to it, unlike contributions to the freedom foundation of former congressman Ron Paul, which are not deductible). Among bailout recipients, it is common to see the money used in ways that destroy jobs for the same American taxpayers who pay the bill. During the time when U.S. banks were receiving more than $150 billion from American workers, they were requesting special visas to import 21,800 personnel from other countries to replace Americans in upper-echelon jobs, including corporate lawyers, investment analysts, programmers, and human-resource specialists.3 This disdain for the American work force is partly because of corporate pursuit of maximum profit above all else and partly because decision makers consider themselves to be internationalists, with no special interest in America except as a cash cow to be milked as regularly and thoroughly as possible. As will be illustrated in the following chapters of this book, some of these people, acting through organizations such as the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations), are consciously pursuing policies designed to lower the economic stature of America so it can be more comfortably merged into global government. Taking money from American workers to build up the economies of foreign countries has done much to advance that goal.
NATIONALIZATION BECOMES A REALITY
What the government funds, it controls; and what it controls, it owns. This point was made crystal clear when, on April 1, 2009, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner (NYSE:CFR) announced he was prepared to oust the CEO of any bank that received a bailout if he doesn't run the bank correctly. Geithner was not planning to fire anyone. The purpose of his statement was to convince the public that the government was being conscientious and responsible with the handling of so much money, but the significance of his statement is that the Secretary of the Treasury now holds the power to oust bank CEOs without concern for the wishes of their boards of directors. That represents the ultimate privilege of ownership. The new reality is that the financial industry and major chunks of the insurance and automobile industries now have been nationalized, which is a soft word for saying they are owned by the government.
Communist Moles in Council on Foreign Relations.
Harry Dexter White was America's chief technical expert and the dominant force at the July 1944 international conference at The Mount Washington Hotel in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire. Officially it was called the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference. Two international agencies were formed at the conference the IMF and The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, commonly called The World Bank.
He eventually became the first Executive Director for the United States at the IMF.
An interesting footnote to this story is that White was simultaneously a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and a member of a Communist espionage ring in Washington while he served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. And even more interesting is that the White House was informed of that fact when President Truman appointed him to his post. The FBI had transmitted to the White House detailed proof of White's activities on at least two separate occasions. Serving as the technical secretary at the Bretton Woods conference was Virginius Frank Coe, a member of the same espionage ring to which White belonged. Coe later became the first Secretary of the IMF. Thus, completely hidden from public view, there was a complex drama taking place in which the intellectual guiding lights at the Bretton Woods conference were Fabian Socialists and Communists. Although they were in disagreement over method, they were in perfect harmony on goal: international socialism.
CFR SETS STRATEGY
The brain trust for implementing the Fabian plan in America is called the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). We shall look at it closely, as it is important to know at this point that almost all of America's leadership has come from this small group. That includes our presidents and their advisers, cabinet members, ambassadors, board members of the Federal Reserve System, directors of the largest banks and investment houses, presidents of universities, and heads of metropolitan newspapers, news services, and TV networks. It is not an exaggeration to describe this group as the hidden government of the United States.
CFR members have never been shy about calling for the weakening of America as a necessary step toward the greater good of building world government. One of the CFR founders was John Foster Dulles, who later was appointed Secretary-of-State by CFR member Dwight Eisenhower. In 1939, Dulles said:
Some dilution or leveling off of the sovereignty system as it prevails in the world today must take place, to the immediate disadvantage of those nations which now possess the preponderance of power. The establishment of a common money would deprive our government of exclusive control over a national money.... The United States must be prepared to make sacrifices afterward in setting up a world politico-economic order which would level off inequalities of economic opportunity with respect to nations."
CFR member Zbigniew Brzezinski was the National Security Adviser to CFR member Jimmy Carter. In 1970, Brzezinski wrote:
... some international cooperation has already been achieved, but further progress will require greater American sacrifices. More intensive efforts to shape a new world monetary structure will have to be undertaken, with some consequent risk to the present relatively favorable American position.
At the Spring, 1983, Economic Summit in Williamsburg, Virginia, President Ronald Reagan declared:
National economies need monetary coordination mechanisms, and that is why an integrated world economy needs a common monetary standard.... But, no national currency will do--only a world currency will work.
The CFR strategy for convergence of the world's monetary systems was spelled out by Harvard Professor Richard N. Cooper, a CFR member who had been the Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs in the Carter Administration:
""I suggest a radical alternative scheme for the next century: the creation of a common currency for all of the industrial democracies, with a common monetary policy and a joint Bank of Issue to determine that monetary policy.'" How can independent states accomplish that? They need to turn over the determination of monetary policy to a supranational body.
It is highly doubtful whether the American public, to take just one example, could ever accept that countries with oppressive autocratic regimes should vote on the monetary policy that would affect monetary conditions in the United States. For such a bold step to work at all, it presupposes a certain convergence of political values.
Phrases such as monetary coordination mechanisms, modern world economic order, convergence of political values, or new world order are not very specific. To the average person, they sound pleasant and harmless. Yet, to the insiders of the club, they are code phrases that have a specific meaning: the termination of national sovereignty and the creation of world government. CFR member Richard Gardner--another adviser to President Carter--explains the meaning of these phrases and also calls for the Fabian strategy of deception and gradualism.
In short, the "house of world order" will have to be built from the bottom up.... An end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.
As for the programmed decline of the American economy, CFR member Samuel Huntington argues that, if higher education is
"considered to be desirable for the general population, a program is then necessary to lower the job expectations of those who receive a college education." CFR member Paul Volcker, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, says: "The standard of living of the average American has to decline.... I don't think you can escape that."
By 1993, Volcker had become the U.S. Chairman of the Trilateral Commission. The TLC was created by David Rockefeller to coordinate the building of The New World Order in accordance with the Gardner strategy: "An end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece." The objective is to draw the United States, Mexico, Canada, Japan, and Western Europe into political and economic union. Under slogans such as free trade and environmental protection, each nation is to surrender its sovereignty "piece by piece" until a full-blown regional government emerges from the process. The new government will control each nation's working conditions, wages, and taxes. Once that has happened, it will be a relatively simple step to merge the regionals into global government. That is the reality behind t he so-called trade treaties within the European Union (NYSEARCA:EU), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation agreement (APEC), and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (OTC:GATT). They have little to do with trade. In the Trilateral Commission's annual report for 1993, Volcker explains:
"Interdependence is driving our countries toward convergence in areas once considered fully within the domestic purview. Some of these areas involve government regulatory policy, such as environmental standards, the fair treatment of workers, and taxation. "
In 1992, the Trilateral Commission released a report coauthored by Toyoo Gyohten, Chairman of the Board of the Bank of Tokyo and formerly Japan's Minister of Finance for International Affairs. Gyohten had been a Fulbright Scholar who was trained at Princeton and taught at Harvard Business School. He also had been in charge of the Japan Desk of the International Monetary Fund. In short, he represents the Japanese monetary interests within The New World Order. In this report, Gyohten explains that the real importance of "trade" agreements is not trade but the building of global government:
Regional trade arrangements should not be regarded as ends in themselves, but as supplements to global liberalization.... Regional arrangements provide models or building blocks for increased or strengthened globalism. Western Europe [the EU] represents regionalism in its truest form.... The steps toward deepening [increasing the number of agreements] are dramatic and designed to be irreversible.. A common currency.... central bank.... court and parliament--will have expanded powers.... After the Maastricht summit [the Dutch town where the meeting was held], an Economist editorial pronounced the verdict: "Call it what you will: by any other name it is federal government." In sum, the regional integration process in Europe can be seen as akin to an exercise in nation-building.1
Applying this same perspective to the NAFTA treaty, former Secretary-of-State Henry Kissinger (Council On Foreign Relations ) said it "is not a conventional trade agreement but the architecture of a new international system, the vital first step for a new kind of community of nations." The newspaper article that contained this statement was appropriately entitled: "With NAFTA, U.S. Finally Creates a New World Order." 2 David Rockefeller (CFR) was even more emphatic. He said that it would be "criminal" not to pass the treaty because: "Everything is in place--after 500 years--to build a true 'new world' in the Western Hemisphere."
THE NEED FOR CONVERGENCE
This sets the stage for understanding the next phase of the game that is unfolding as these words are being written. It is the inclusion of China and the former Soviet bloc into the Grand Design for global government. As with all the other countries in the world, the primary mechanism being used to accomplish this goal, at least in the field of economics, is the IMF/World Bank. The process is: (1) the transfer of money from the industrialized nations--which drags them down economically to a suitable common denominator--and (2) the acquisition of effective control over the political leaders of the recipient countries as they become dependent upon the money stream. The thing that is new and which sets this stage apart from previous developments is that the apparent crumbling of Communism has created an acceptable rationale for the industrialized nations to now allow their lifeblood to flow into the veins of their former enemies. It also creates the appearance of global, political convergence, a condition that CFR theoretician Richard Cooper said was necessary before Americans would accept having their own destinies determined by governments other than their own.
In 1990, the U.S. Export-Import Bank announced it would begin making direct loans to Russia. Meanwhile, the U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation was providing free "insurance" to private companies that were willing to invest in the ex-Soviet state. In other words, it was now doing for industrial corporations what it had been doing all along for banks: guaranteeing that, if their investments turned sour, the government--make that taxpayers--would compensate them for their losses. The limit on that insurance had been $100 million, a generous figure indeed. But, to encourage an even greater flow of private capital into Russia, the Bush Administration authorized unlimited protection for 'sound American corporate investments.'
If these truly were sound investments, they would not need foreign-aid subsidies or government guarantees. What is really happening in this play is a triple score:
International lending agencies provide the Social Democrats with money to purchase goods and services from American firms. No one really expects them to repay. It is merely a clever method of redistributing wealth from those who have it to those who don't--without those who have it catching on.
There you have it: The Social Democrats get the goodies; the corporations get the profits, and the banks get the interest on money created out of nothing. You know what the taxpayers get!
By 1992, the wearisome pattern was clearly visible. Writing in the New York Times, columnist Leslie H. Gelb gave the numbers:
"The ex-Soviet states are now meeting only 30 percent of their interest payments (and almost no principal) on debts to the West of $70 billion. Various forms of Western aid to the ex-Soviet states totaled about $50 billion in the last 20 months, and the money has virtually disappeared without a trace or a dent on the economic picture." The interesting thing about this report is that Leslie Gelb has been a member of the Council On Foreign Relations R since 1973. Why would a CFR spokesman blow the whistle on one of their most important maneuvers toward The New World Order? The answer is that he is doing just the opposite. Actually he is making a plea for more loans and more outright aid on the basis that the need is so great! He advocates the prioritizing of funding with first attention to aiding Russia's nuclear-power facilities, agriculture, and industrial capacity. At the end of his article, he writes:
"The stakes could not be higher, all the more reason for substantial, practical and immediate aid, not for grand illusions."
Disclosure: The author has no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.
Additional disclosure: information provided herein with the permission of G. Edward Griffin