Secret shadow government the council on foreign relations and the trilateral commission 30

8/22/2016

TRUE DEMOCRACY SUMMER 2001

TRUE DEMOCRACY SUMMER 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE SECRET SHADOW GOVERNMENT The Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission David Rockefeller Henry Kissinger Zbigniew Brzezinski Visit the CFR's own web server at http://http://www.foreignrelations.org or email them at communications@cfr.org. Note that CFR also stands for "Code of Federal Regulations," the counterpart to the US Code, and to the uninitiated this can at times be confusing.

Also, visit the Royal Institute for International Affairs, one of the CFR's sister organizations, on their webserver at http://http://www.riia.org or email them at contact@riia.org.

Visit the Trilateral Commission's own web server at http://http://www.trilateral.org/, or email them at trilat@panix.com.

The Council of the Americas was founded in 1965 "by David Rockefeller and a group of like­minded business people." It claims to be "the leading U.S. business organization dedicated to promoting regional economic integration, open markets, free trade, and investment, and the rule of law throughout the Western Hemisphere." They state that "membership has grown to over 240 firms with interests and investments in Latin America. Member firms include manufacturing, natural resources, technology, communications, banking, financial services, and law firms." The COA appears to have been instrumental in enactment and defense of NAFTA. Email them at Webmaster@CounciloftheAmericas.org.

The conferences and meetings of the Council on Foreign Relations, Council of the Americas, Royal Institute for International Affairs, Institute of Pacific Relations, Trilateral Commission, Gorbachev Foundation, Bill Gates, etc., are not places where major decisions are made or new strategies embraced. These are simply arenas where the agenda of the inner circle is imparted in camouflaged form to representative leaders from the six conspirator categories (industrialists, financiers, ideologues, military, professional specialists (lawyers, medical doctors, etc., and organized labor). These representatives also provide feedback on the status of their area of responsibility. If you were a fly on the wall at one of these conferences, you would seldom hear anything approaching "smoking gun" evidence of the grand design of the inner circle conspirators. Most of the 3000­odd rank and file members of the CFR have no more suspicion of it than do most rank and file members of the public at large. The Bilderberg apparatus is indeed a place where one would hear noticeably more candid treatment of the strategies discussed in this compilation, but is still not by any means truly open. Bilderberg and the other gatherings are all arenas in which psychological warfare is waged on the world's visible elite. from http://http://www.parascope.com/mx/council1.htm :

The Background ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ The Council on Foreign Relations and the New World Order

By Charles Overbeck (PSCPirhana) Matrix Editor The Council on Foreign Relations, housed in the Harold Pratt House on East 68th Street in New York City, was founded in 1921. In 1922, it began publishing a journal called Foreign Affairs. According to Foreign Affairs' web page (http://http://www.foreignaffairs.org), the CFR was founded when "...several of the American participants in the Paris Peace Conference decided that it was time for more private American Citizens to become familiar with the increasing international responsibilities and obligations of the United States."

The first question that comes to mind is, who gave these people the authority to decide the responsibilities and obligations of the United States, if that power was not granted to them by the Constitution. Furthermore, the CFR's web page doesn't publicize the fact that it was originally conceivedas part of a much larger network of power. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/shadow/s03.htm

1/8

8/22/2016

TRUE DEMOCRACY SUMMER 2001

According to the CFR's Handbook of 1936, several leading members of the delegations to the Paris Peace Conference met at the Hotel Majestic in Paris on May 30, 1919, "to discuss setting up an international group which would advise their respective governments on international affairs."

The Handbook goes on to say, "At a meeting on June 5, 1919, the planners decided it would be best to have separate organizations cooperating with each other. Consequently, they organized the Council on Foreign Relations, with headquarters in New York, and a sister organization, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, in London, also known as the Chatham House Study Group, to advise the British Government. A subsidiary organization, the Institute of Pacific Relations, was set up to deal exclusively with Far Eastern Affairs. Other organizations were set up in Paris and Hamburg..."

The 3,000 seats of the CFR quickly filled with members of America's elite. Today, CFR members occupy key positions in government, the mass media, financial institutions, multinational corporations, the military, and the national security apparatus.

Since its inception, the CFR has served as an intermediary between high finance, big oil, corporate elitists and the U.S. government. The executive branch changes hands between Republican and Democratic administrations, but cabinet seats are always held by CFR members. It has been said by political commentators on the left and on the right that if you want to know what U.S. foreign policy will be next year, you should read Foreign Affairs this year.

The CFR's claim that "The Council has no affiliation with the U.S. government" is laughable. The justification for that statement is that funding comes from member dues, subscriptions to its Corporate Program, foundation grants, and so forth. All this really means is that the U.S. government does not exert any control over the CFR via the purse strings.

In reality, CFR members are very tightly affiliated with the U.S. government. Since 1940, every U.S. secretary of state (except for Gov. James Byrnes of South Carolina, the sole exception) has been a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and/or its younger brother, the Trilateral Commission. Also since 1940, every secretary of war and every secretary of defense has been a CFR member. During most of its existence, the Central Intelligence Agency has been headed by CFR members, beginning with CFR founding member Allen Dulles. Virtually every key U.S. national security and foreign policy adviser has been a CFR member for the past seventy years.

Almost all White House cabinet positions are occupied by CFR members. President Clinton, himself a member of the CFR, the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group, employs almost one hundred CFR members in his administration.

Presidents come and go, but the CFR's power­­and agenda­­always remains.

When it was founded in 1921, the CFR was dominated by J.P. Morgan. Morgan is a Rothschild tentacle. This simply reinforces the obvious, that the CFR is a Rothschild instrument operated by the Rockefellers. The CFR is the immediate progeny of Rhodes' Round Table, which was underwritten by the Rothschilds.

David Rockefeller is the chairman emeritus of the CFR. Rockefeller also founded in 1973, and is honorary chairman of, the Trilateral Commission. In 1979, Barry Goldwater published this treatise on the subject: from http://http://www.ptialaska.net/~swampy/illuminati/cfr_2.html :

Goldwater Sees Elitist Sentiments Threatening Liberties

By U.S. Senator Barry M. Goldwater (1979) In September 1939, two members of the Council on Foreign Relations visited the State Department to offer the council's services.

They proposed to do research and make recommendations for the department without formal assignment or responsibility, particularly in four areas ­ security armaments, economic and financial problems, political problems, and territorial problems.

The Rockefeller Foundation agreed to finance the operation of this plan.

From that day forward, the Council on Foreign Relations has placed its members in policy­making positions with the State Department and other federal agencies. Every Secretary of State since 1944, with the exception of James F. Byrnes, has been a member of the council.

Almost without exception, its members are united by a congeniality of birth, economic status and educational background. The organization itself began in 1919 in Paris when scholars turned their attention to foreign affairs after the end of World War I. It remains a non­governmental private grouping of specialists in foreign affairs.

A number of writers, disturbed by the influential role that this organization has played in determining foreign policy, have http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/shadow/s03.htm

2/8

8/22/2016

TRUE DEMOCRACY SUMMER 2001

concluded that the council and its members are an active part of the communist conspiracy for world domination.

Their syllogistic argument goes like this: the council has dominated American foreign policy since 1945. All American policy decisions have resulted in losses to the communists. Therefore, all members of the council are communist sympathizers.

Many of the policies advocated by the council have been damaging to the cause of freedom and particularly to the United States. But this is not because the members are communists or communist sympathizers. This explanation of our foreign policy reversals is too pat, too simplistic.

I believe that the Council on Foreign Relations and its ancillary elitist groups are indifferent to communism. They have no ideological anchors. In their pursuit of a New World Order, they are prepared to deal without prejudice with a communist state, a socialist state, a democratic state, a monarchy, an oligarchy ­ it's all the same to them.

Their goal is to impose a benign stability on the quarreling family of nations through merger and consolidation. They see the elimination of national boundaries, the suppression of racial and ethnic loyalties, as the most expeditious avenue to world peace. They believe economic competition is the root cause of international tension.

Perhaps if the council's vision of the future were realized, it would reduce wars, lessen poverty and bring about a more efficient utilization of the world's resources. To my mind, this would inevitably be accompanied by a loss in personal freedom of choice and re­establishment of the restraints that provoked the American revolution.

When we change presidents, it is understood to mean that the voters are ordering a change in national policy. Since 1945, three different Republicans have occupied the White House for 16 years, and four Democrats have held this most powerful post for 17 years. With the exception of the first seven years of the Eisenhower administration, there has been no appreciable change in foreign or domestic policy direction.

There has been a great turnover in personnel, but no change in policy. Example: during the Nixon years, Henry Kissinger, a council member and Nelson Rockefeller protegé, was in charge of foreign policy. When Jimmy Carter was elected, Kissinger was replaced by Zbigniew Brzezinski, a council member and David Rockefeller protegé.

Starting in the '30s and continuing through World War II, our official attitude toward the Far East reflected the thinking of the Institute of Pacific Relations. Members of the institute were placed in important teaching positions. They dominated the Asian affairs section of the State Department. Their publications were standard reading material for the armed forces, in most American colleges, and were used in 1,300 public school systems.

The Institute of Pacific Relations was behind the decision to cut off aid to Chiang Kai­Shek unless he embraced the Communists, and the Council on Foreign Relations is the parent organization of the Institute of Pacific Relations.

In 1962, Nelson Rockefeller, in a lecture at Harvard University on the interdependence of nations in the modern world, said: "And so the nation­state, standing alone, threatens in many ways to seem as anachronistic as the Greek city­state eventually became in ancient times."

Everything he said was true. We are dependent on other nations for raw materials and for markets. It is necessary to have defense alliances with other nations in order to balance the military power of those who would destroy us.

Where I differ from Rockefeller is in the suggestion that to achieve this new federalism, the United States must submerge its national identity and surrender substantial matters of sovereignty to a new political order.

The implications in Nelson Rockefeller's presentation have become concrete proposals advanced by David Rockefeller's newest international cabal, the Trilateral Commission.

Whereas the Council on Foreign Relations is distinctly national, representation is allocated equally to Western Europe, Japan and the United States. It is intended to act as the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States.

Zbigniew Brzezinski and David Rockefeller screened and selected every individual who was invited to participate in shaping and administering the proposed New World Order.

In the late 1950s, Brzezinski, an accepted member of the inner circle of academics, asserting the need for global strategies, was openly anti­communist. By 1964, he had modified his criticism of communism.

In his prospectus describing the Trilateral commission, David Rockefeller said that he intended to bring the best brains of the world together to bear on the problems of the future.

I find nothing inherently sinister in this original proposal, although the name he gave his new creation strikes me as both http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/shadow/s03.htm

3/8

8/22/2016

TRUE DEMOCRACY SUMMER 2001

grandiose and presumptuous. The accepted definition of a commission is a group nominated by some higher authority to perform a specific function.

The Trilateral organization created by David Rockefeller was a surrogate ­ its members selected by Rockefeller, its purposes defined by Rockefeller, its funding supplied by Rockefeller.

Whether or not the approximately 200 individuals selected for membership on the commission represent the "best brains" in the world is an arguable proposition.

Examination of the membership roster establishes beyond question that all those invited to join were members of the power elite, enlisted with great skill and singleness of purpose from the banking, commercial, political and communications sectors.

Nor was the governmental community over­looked, Invitations to join were extended to Sen. Walter Mondale, Gov. Jimmy Carter of Georgia, George Ball, Cyrus Vance, Paul Warnke and Reps. Donald Fraser and John Brademas, among others.

In my view, the Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power ­ political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical.

All this is to be done in the interest of creating a more peaceful, more productive world community. I have no hesitancy about judging its wisdom and the results of its actions.

A report presented at the plenary meeting of the Trilateral Commission in May 1975, at Kyoto, Japan, called for an enlargement of central authority and expressed a lack of confidence in democratically arrived at public decisions.

It also suggested that it would be helpful to impose prior restrictions on the press and to restructure the laws of libel to check the power of the press.

I've suffered as greatly from an abusive press as any man in public life, but I get an itchy, uncomfortable feeling at the base of my spine when someone suggest that government should control the news.

The entire Trilateral Commission approach is strictly economic. No recognition is given to the political condition. Total reliance is placed on materialism. The commission emphasizes the necessity of eliminating artificial barriers to world commerce, tariff, export duties, quota ­ an objective that I strongly support. What it proposes to substitute is an international economy managed and controlled by international monetary groups.

No attempt has been made to explain why the people of the Western world enjoy economic abundance. Freedom ­ spiritual, political, economic ­ is denied any importance in the Trilateral construction of the next century.

The Trilateral Commission even selects and elevates its candidates to positions of political power.

David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski found Jimmy Carter to be an ideal candidate, for example. They helped him win the Democratic nomination and the Presidency.

To accomplish their purpose, they mobilized the money power of the Wall Street bankers, the intellectual influence of the academic community ­ which is subservient to the wealthy of the great tax­free foundations ­ and the media controllers represented in the membership of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission.

It was no accident that Brzezinski and Rockefeller invited Carter to join the commission in 1973. But they weren't ready to bet all their chips on Carter.

They made him a founding member of the commission but to keep their options open, they also brought in Walter Mondale and Elliot Richardson, a highly visible Republican member of the Nixon administration, and they looked at other potential nominees.

After his nomination, Carter chose Mondale as his vice president. He chose Brzezinski as his foreign affairs adviser and Cyrus Vance as his secretary of state.

Accepting the Democratic presidential nomination in New York, Carter denounced those "unholy, self­perpetuating alliances that have formed between money and politics."

The outsider, Carter, had been co­opted by the insiders in the power elite.

The following is an abridged version of a speech given by Senator Jesse Helms (on the Senate floor) on 1987­Dec­15, from the Congressional Record 1987­Dec­15 p.S18146 (et seq), from http://users.itsnet.com/~foodnow/jesse.htm : http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/shadow/s03.htm

4/8

8/22/2016

TRUE DEMOCRACY SUMMER 2001

This campaign against the American people ­against traditional American culture and values ­ is systematic psychological warfare. It is orchestrated by a vast array of interests comprising not only the Eastern establishment but also the radical left.

Among this group we find the Department of State, the Department of Commerce, the money center banks and multinational corporations, the media, the educational establishment, the entertainment industry, and the large tax­exempt foundations.

Mr. President, a careful examination of what is happening behind the scenes reveals that all of these interests are working in concert with the masters of the Kremlin in order to create what some refer to as a New World Order. Private organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the Trilateral Commission, the Dartmouth Conference, the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, the Atlantic Institute, and the Bilderberger Group serve to disseminate and to coordinate the plans for this so­called New World Order in powerful business, financial, academic, and official circles. . . .

The psychological campaign that I am describing, as I have said, is the work of groups within the Eastern establishment, that amorphous amalgam of wealth and social connections whose power resides in its control over our financial system and over a large portion of our industrial sector. The principal instrument of this control over the American economy and money is the Federal Reserve System. The policies of the Industrial sectors, primarily the multinational corporations, are influenced by the money center banks through debt financing and through the large blocks of stock controlled by the trust departments of the money center banks.

Anyone familiar with American history, and particularly American economic history, cannot fail to notice the control over the Department of State and the Central Intelligence Agency which Wall Street seems to exercise....

The influence of establishment insiders over our foreign policy has become a fact of life in our time. This pervasive influence runs contrary to the real long­term national security of our Nation. It is an influence which, if unchecked, could ultimately subvert our constitutional order.

The viewpoint of the establishment today is called globalism. Not so long ago, this viewpoint was called the "one­world" view by its critics. The phrase is no longer fashionable among sophisticates; yet, the phrase "one­world" is still apt because nothing has changed in the minds and actions of those promoting policies consistent with its fundamental tenets.

Mr. President, in the globalist point of view, nation­states and national boundaries do not count for anything. Political philosophies and political principles seem to become simply relative. Indeed, even constitutions are irrelevant to the exercise of power. Liberty and tyranny are viewed as neither necessarily good nor evil, and certainly not a component of policy.

In this point of view, the activities of international financial and industrial forces should be oriented to bringing this one­world design ­ with a convergence of the Soviet and American systems as its centerpiece ­ into being. . . . All that matters to this club is the maximization of profits resulting from the practice of what can be described as finance capitalism, a system which rests upon the twin pillars of debt and monopoly. This isn't real capitalism. It is the road to economic concentration and to political slavery. an excerpt from How you became the enemy: America's Military Looks Inward , by Sam Smith, from The Progressive Review: Of course, just as people really can be out to get paranoids, so even a rampantly misguided military establishment can really face some serious threats. This fact raises America's military myopia from absurdity into the realm of justifiable concern.

An open discussion of such threats, however, is virtually impossible. Even the right to talk about such things is a tightly held prerogative of the mandarin class. The Council of Foreign Relations, a cult­like like organization that journalist Richard Hardwood approvingly calls "the nearest thing to a ruling establishment in America," routinely holds meetings at which participants (including guests) are prohibited from speaking about what transpired.

It's not that one would really want to listen to much of it. The men and women who have designated themselves the guardians of America's future policies are among the most boring and unimaginative folk one finds in Washington. Many are like those described by LBJ as having gone to Princeton and ended up in the CIA because their daddies wouldn't let them into the brokerage firm. Still it is not too comforting to realize that in the quiet places of Washington, the first half of the 21st century (as they never tire of calling what the rest of us call the future) is in the hands of the conceptually dyslectic.

And the media is not about to challenge these folk. One good reason may be found in a 1995 membership roster of the Council on Foreign Relations as reported by Public Information Research. Here are just a few of the media CFRers: Roone Arledge, Sidney Blumenthal, David Brinkley, Tom Brokaw, William F. Buckley Jr., Hodding Carter III, John Chancellor, Arnaud de Borchgave, Joan Didion, Leonard Downie Jr., Elizabeth Drew, Rowland Evans Jr., James Fallows, Leslie Gelb, http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/shadow/s03.htm

5/8

8/22/2016

TRUE DEMOCRACY SUMMER 2001

David Gergen, Katharine Graham, Meg Greenfield, Jim Hoagland, Warren Hoge, David Ignatius, Robert Kaiser, Marvin Kalb, Joe Klein, Morton Kondrake, Charles Krauthammer, Irving Kristol, Jim Lehrer, Anthony Lewis, Michael Lind, Jessica Matthews, Jack Nelson, Walter Pincus, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Rather, Stephen Rosenfeld, A. M. Rosenthal, Diane Sawyer, Hederick Smith, Laurence Tish, Garrick Utley, Katrina vander Heuval, Milton Viorst, Ben Wattenberg, Lally Weymouth, Roger Wilkins, and Mortimer Zuckerman.

Ask any of these people what went on at their last CFR tête­à­tête and you'll probably find their concern for a free press rapidly evaporating. Katherine Graham, for example, once told a CIA gathering: "There are some things the general public does not need to know and shouldn't."

There are substantial implications to all this. If, for example, the CFR puts out a report decrying restraints on the CIA, may we infer that the aforementioned concur? If not, how many have publicly stated their disagreement? How, in fact, can we tell what is going on if foreign policy discussions are handled in the manner of meetings of the Masons, Montana Militia, or Skull & Bones? excerpt from http://www9.pair.com/xpoez/money/shadow.html, "The Shadow Government of the United States and the Decline of America" by Richard D. Eastman (November 1994): CFR control in government actually began in earnest in 1939 by establishing within the U.S. State Department a "Committee on Post­War Problems", the group (staffed and funded by the CFR) which designed the United Nations. (the story of which is contained in State Dept. Publication 2349­"Report To The President On The Results of the San Francisco Conference").

Since WWII, the CFR has filled key positions in virtually every administration since then. Furthermore, since Eisenhower, every man who has won the nomination for either party (except Goldwater in 1964 and Reagan in 1980) has been a member of the CFR: Democrats * John W. Davis(1924) * Adlai Stevenson (1952,56) * John F. Kennedy (1960) * Hubert Humphrey (1968) * George McGovern (1972) * Jimmy Carter (1976,80) * Walter Mondale (1984) * Michael Dukakis (1988) * Bill Clinton (1992) Republicans * Herbert Hoover (1928,32) * Wendell Wilkie (1940) * Thomas Dewey (1944,48) * Dwight Eisenhower (1952,56) * Richard Nixon (1960,68,72) * Gerald Ford (1976) * George Bush (1988,92) (who was also a director of the CFR 1977­1979)

[...] from <roundtable@mail.geocities.com>, 1999­Jan­22: CFR Secretaries of Defense The National Security Act of 1947 established the office of Secretary of Defense. Since 1947 there have been 19 Secretaries of Defense. At least nine of them have been Council on Foreign Relations and/or Trilateral Commission members.

According to Department of the Army Pamphlet No. 525­7­1, The Art and Science of Psychological Operations, "The Secretary of Defense is the principal assistant to the president in all matters relating to Department of Defense, and exercises direction, authority, and control over the department. He serves as a member of the National Security Council. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/shadow/s03.htm

6/8

8/22/2016

TRUE DEMOCRACY SUMMER 2001

Among the several principal military and civilian advisor and staff assistants to the secretary, his assistant secretary for international security affairs, has major Psychological Operations(PSYOP) related responsibilities."1 President Clinton has appointed three Secretaries of Defense ­­ William Cohen, William Perry, and Les Aspin. As Under Secretary for International Security Affairs, Lynn Etheridge Davis, has been coordinating Psychological Operations under all three. Davis has been involved with the US intelligence community and a part of every administration from the 70's through the 90's.

Davis, Clinton and Perry are Trilateral Commission members. Davis, Clinton, Cohen, and Aspin all belong to the Council on Foreign Relations. Davis published a book titled "The Cold War Begins ­ Soviet­American Conflict Over Eastern Europe" (1974). Council on Foreign Relations members Warner Schilling, William Fox, Howard Wriggins, Marshall Shulman, and Henry Graff, are acknowledged in the beginning of her book.

Davis is also a Vice President at Council on Foreign Relations member David Rockefeller's Chase Manhattan bank. Does Davis help plan Psycho­political operations whose focus is economic warfare?

The RAND Institute is a federally­funded Council on Foreign Relations think­tank. Clients, include the Pentagon, the Atomic Energy Commission, and NASA. RAND's Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies, was formerly called RAND/UCLA Center for the Study of Soviet International Behavior. Many RAND studies deal with how to manipulate large groups of people.

The Office of the Secretary of Defense sponsors the RAND National Defense Research Institute, headed by Council on Foreign Relations member Michael D. Rich. Fifty per cent of RAND's work is labeled secret. Despite the secrecy governing its activities, RAND has a prodigious outpouring of books, reports, memoranda, briefings, and communications. Joseph Kraft summed up the propaganda effect of this material, "Though little known, RAND has had an enormous impact on the nations strategic concepts and weapons systems, and in one way or another RAND has affected the life of every American family. " Members of the Council on Foreign Relations play a crucial role in RAND's application of strategies and techniques to purposely keep the American public misinformed.

In July 1992, the RAND convened a group of outside experts and RAND staff to discuss the problems of peacekeeping and peacemaking in the new world environment brought on by the collapse of Soviet power and the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Dr. Davis, then RAND's Vice President, Army Research Division, prepared a paper setting issues for the group's discussion. The paper was revised and published as a RAND Summer Institute Report titled Peacekeeping and Peacemaking After the Cold War. In the report the word peace is used in an Orwellian doublethink manner. We are told the Secretary General of the UN "defines peace building as post conflict action... The Secretary General has linked preventive diplomacy with preventive deployments of military forces". We learn, "The Secretary General in his Agenda for Peace... emphasizes the need for governments to share information on Political or military situations, and in so doing, he is asking for an expansion of the intelligence sharing... "2 There were thirteen other participants at the RAND Summer Institute Peacekeeping and Peacemaking After the Cold War workshop.At least six belong to the Council on Foreign Relations including: Professor Robert D. Blackwill, Harvard University, Professor Richard Gardner of Coudert Brothers, Mr. James Hoagland The Washington Post, Ambassador Thomas Pickering NEA/INS Department of State, Dr. Enid Schoettle Council On Foreign Relations and Dr. Charles J. Zwick. At least one of the thirteen is connected to the CIA ­ Professor Thomas C. Schelling University of Maryland. 3 When World War I broke out in 1914, Elihu Root displayed antagonism to Woodrow Wilson's neutrality and was an avid proponent for promoting America's entry into the war, and uncritically backed Allied proposals that American Troops be integrated into British and French armies. When America entered the war in April of 1917 Wilson rejected the notion of having American troops commanded by foreigners and selected Major General Pershing to command an expeditionary force to Europe. When the Council on Foreign Relations was formally established, Elihu Root became its first Director. 4 Eighty­Five years latter the Council on Foreign Relations is still trying to put American Troops under foreign command. The last sentence of the Council on Foreign Relations RAND Summer Institute Report is, "The most important step would be for government to place "volunteer" military forces under UN command. "5 Should appointed officials who belong to an organization whose members are closely connected with industries that profit from war be making decisions that will send American Troops into battle? Are peacekeeping operations designed to maximize the profit of Council on Foreign Relations controlled, medicine, media, food, banking and energy industries?

Is this the next stage in a plan to maintain the most powerful military establishment in peace time history; the next stage in a plan to establish a new world order; the next stage in a plan for the men in control of that world order to be members of the Council on Foreign Relations, Royal Institute of International Affairs, and their branch organizations in other nations? Why are we readying two military bases to launch US Troops on UN Peacekeeping missions, under the command of non­US military personnel to fight in wars that have not been sanctioned by congress? http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/shadow/s03.htm

7/8

8/22/2016

TRUE DEMOCRACY SUMMER 2001

A list of US Secretaries of Defense, indicating Council on Foreign Relations membership follows: * appointed Jan. 1997 second term of Clinton Administration, Council on Foreign Relations member Cohen, William S. US Secretary of Defense * appointed 1994­1997 first term of Clinton administration., Trilateral Commission. Member Perry, William J. US Secretary of Defense * appointed 1993 first term of Clinton administration, Council on Foreign Relations member Aspin, Les US Secretary of Defense * appointed 1989 (Bush administration)., Council on Foreign Relations member Cheney, Richard B. US Secretary of Defense * appointed 1987 (Reagan administration)., Council on Foreign Relations member Carlucci, Frank C. US Secretary of Defense * appointed 1981 (Reagan administration)., Council on Foreign Relations member Weinberger, Caspar W. US Secretary of Defense * appointed 1977 (Carter administration)., Council on Foreign Relations member Brown, Harold US Secretary of Defense * appointed 1975 (Ford administration)., Rumsfeld, Donald H. US Secretary of Defense * appointed 1973 (Nixon administration)., Council on Foreign Relations member Richardson, Elliot L. US Secretary of Defense * appointed 1969 (Nixon administration), Laird, Melvin R. US Secretary of Defense . * appointed 1968 (L. B. Johnson administration)., Clifford, Clark M. US Secretary of Defense * appointed 1961 (Kennedy administration) and 1963 (L. B.Johnson administration), Council on Foreign Relations member McNamara, Robert S. US Secretary of Defense . * appointed 1959 (Eisenhower administration)., Gates, Thomas S. Jr. US Secretary of Defense * appointed 1957 (Eisenhower administration)., McElroy, Neil H. US Secretary of Defense * appointed 1953 (Eisenhower administration)., Wilson, Charles E. US Secretary of Defense * appointed 1951 (Truman administration)., Lovett, Robert A. US Secretary of Defense * appointed (1950­51) (Truman administration), Marshall, George C. General of the Army and U.S. Army Chief of Staff during World War II (1 September 1939 18 November 1945) and later U.S. Secretary of State (1947­49) and Secretary of Defense (1950­51). The European Recovery Program he proposed in 1947 became known as the Marshall Plan. He received the Nobel Prize for Peace in 1953. * appointed 1949 (Truman administration)., Johnson, Louis A. US Secretary of Defense * appointed 1947 (Truman administration), Forrestal, James V. First US Secretary of Defense Part 2 of this ARTICLE

PREVIOUS ARTICLE NEXT ARTICLE Zbigniew Brzezinski and The Trilateral Commission

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/shadow/s03.htm

8/8

11/10/2016

TRUE DEMOCRACY SUMMER 2001

TRUE DEMOCRACY SUMMER 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE SECRET SHADOW GOVERNMENT The Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission part 2 Here is a sample of the Canadian perspective, from John Whitley's New World Order Intelligence Update, from http://http://www.inforamp.net/~jwhitley/canpol.htm :

The Rockefeller links of Canadian politicians...

It may re­pay the reader to spend a few minutes tracing the connections of Paul Desmarais and Power Corp. to the leading politicians, etc. of Canada: * JOHN RAE: leading strategist for Prime Minister Chretien's election campaign. Was Executive Vice­ President of Power Corp. and Paul Desmarais' right­ hand man. His brother is.... * BOB RAE: Rhodes Scholar and ex­NDP [Socialist] Premier of Ontario, who appointed.... * MAURICE STRONG to the chairmanship of Ontario Hydro, which he proceded to dramatically cut in both skilled human resources and generating capacity [to provide a future need for power from James Bay/Grand Canal?] * PAUL MARTIN: current federal Finance Minister. Rose through the ranks at Power Corp., mentored by Paul Desmarais.

Bought Canada Steamship Lines from him. Ran against Chretien for Liberal Party leadership. He attended the 1996 meeting of the Bilderberg Group, where those he mingled with included ­ surprise! ­ David Rockefeller. * JEAN CHRETIEN: Prime Minister. Daughter, France, is married to Andre Desmarais, son of Paul Desmarais, chairman of Power Corporation. Chretien's "advisor, counsellor and strategist" for the past 30 years has been MITCHELL SHARP, who brought Chretien into politics when he was Finance Minister. Sharp has been, since 1981, Vice­Chairman for North America of David Rockefeller's TRILATERAL COMMISSION. Chretien attended the 1996 meeting of the Bilderberg Group. * DANIEL JOHNSON: present Liberal [and Opposition] leader in Quebec. Rose through the ranks of Power Corp. * BRIAN MULRONEY: ex­Conservative Prime Minister. Now a lawyer and lobbyist for Power Corporation which, together with Ontario Hydro and Hydro Quebec, has just formed the Hong Kong­based ASIA POWER CORP., to help China to develop its energy potential. Power Corp.'s legal interests in Asia will be handled by a Hong Kong branch of Mulroney's Montreal law firm, Olgilvy, Renault. He is also a well­remunerated member of the board of Archer­Daniels­Midland, a Rockefeller­owned conglomerate, which is headed by Dwayne Andreas who, like Rockefeller himself, is also a member of the elite and secretive Bilderberg Group. * Mike Harris, Premier of Ontario, who headed off for a fishing weekend at a remote Northern camp with George Bush and Paul Martin soon after his election. Harris, like his colleague Ralph Klein, Premier of Alberta, is also a Bilderberger. * Two intriguing recent additions to this list are PRESTON MANNING, leader of the Reform Party of Canada and of Canada's Official Opposition in the Federal Parliament, and STEPHANE DION, Federal Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs [Canada's "Unity Minister"], who, together with RAYMOND A.J. CHRETIEN, Canadian Ambassador to the U.S. [and nephew of Jean Chretien, Prime Minister of Canada], attended the tightly­guarded, super­secret 1998 BILDERBERGER CONFERENCE at the Turnberry Arms Hotel, Ayr, Scotland, where, of course, David Rockefeller was also in attendance. One wonders if the Bilderbergers' planned breakup of Canada, following the projected separation of Quebec via a Unilateral Declaration of Independence in January, 2000, and the planned 2005 Continental Union of the U.S. and the rest of Canada might have been on the agenda...?

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/shadow/s03b.htm

1/12

11/10/2016

TRUE DEMOCRACY SUMMER 2001

So...we have the CONSERVATIVE party [via Mulroney], the LIBERAL party [via Chretien], and the NDP [via Rae] all tightly connected to....Paul Desmarais and Power Corp.

And we have the Prime Minister, the Finance Minister, and the Prime Minister's key aide all tightly connected to....Paul Desmarais and Power Corp .

Mel Hurtig wrote, in THE BETRAYAL OF CANADA:

"Since Brian Mulroney became Prime Minister, Big Business has had effective control of the political and economic agenda, and hence the social and cultural agenda as well. Paul Desmarais provided much of the money for Pierre Trudeau's campaign, Brian Mulroney's campaign, and Jean Chretien's campaign." [p.188]

[We hate to disillusion any of the remaining fans of ex­Prime Minister Trudeau, but Pierre Trudeau was also a Bilderberger]

Maurice Strong has now joined Brian Mulroney and Paul Desmarais in investing the Asia Power Group's $100 million venture capital in "small coal­fired power plants being built in the south of China". They are also looking at "larger projects in northern China, as well as in Malaysia, the Philippines and India." The Asian economies are expected to spend $1 trillion [US] on essential infrastructure, of which an estimated $400 billion [US] will be on power generation. Chinese and Asian labour costs are low ­ as low, in China, as $45 per month ­ and potential profits are high.

The Nov/Dec. 1993 issue of David Rockefeller's Council on Foreign Relations' publication FOREIGN RELATIONS contains an article, THE RISE OF CHINA, in which we are warned that China will begin to use more energy than the United States within a few decades, massively straining the world's energy supplies. Most of China's energy comes from the burning of soft, high­sulphur, highly­ polluting coal. In 1991 alone, 11 trillion cubic meters of waste gases and sixteen million tons of soot were emitted into the atmosphere over China ­ and it has only just begun its long process of increased energy generation!

The sulphur in this coal causes acid rain. The burning of the coal releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the most efficient "greenhouse gas" in the global warming process.

The warmer the climate becomes, the greater the need for fresh water in Mexico and the southern United States ­ and the more urgent the need for a GRAND Canal project to get it there. An astute businessman could, if he were so inclined, potentially make astronomical profits off both ends of this process!

Oh, and Paul Desmarais?

In September, 1993, he joined David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission.

He won't feel out­of­place there, though. Other prominent Canadian members include Gerald Bouey [former Governor of the Bank of Canada]; Conrad Black, newspaper magnate and chairman of Argus; John Allen, CEO of Stelco; Raymond Cyr, President of Bell Canada Enterprises; Peter Dobell, of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade, in Ottawa; Marie­Jose Druin, Hudson Institute of Canada; Claude Edwards, Public Staff Relations Board in Ottawa; Allan Gottlieb, former Canadian Ambassador to the U.S.; David Henniger, Regional Director of Burns, Fry; Senator Duff Roblin; Ron Sutherland, CEO of ATCO Ltd., William Turner, of Montreal's PCC Industrial Corporation; and J.H. Warren, former Canadian Ambassador to the U.S.

[And, of course, Quebec Premier Jacques Parizeau was also in the habit of frequently briefing meetings of David Rockefeller's Council on Foreign Relations in Washington; and Lucien Bouchard, separatist PQ leader, was brought into politics by Brian Mulroney, whose last act in Ottawa was to host a black­tie dinner for 200 members of Rockefeller's Council of the Americas, who flew up on Rockefeller's private jet to celebrate the successful negotiation of NAFTA ­ another Rockefeller innovation]

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

"We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest." ­James R. Warburg (CFR)

"We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money."

­Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., in "Foreign Affairs," July/August 1995.

"...In short, the 'house of world order' will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great 'booming, buzzing confusion,' to use William James' famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old­fashioned frontal assault."

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/shadow/s03b.htm

2/12

11/10/2016

TRUE DEMOCRACY SUMMER 2001

­Richard N. Gardner, in "Foreign Affairs," April 1974.

"The [Council on Foreign Relations] grew out of the Inquiry, a secretive group of well­educated bankers and lawyers who accompanied Woodrow Wilson to the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. The council saw [as] its mandate the calling of signals from the sidelines.... [T]he [elites] govern, while the lowly men of elective office...dirty their hands with politics... The international institutions conceived in 1945 ­­ the UN, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund ­­ were anticipated in studies done at the council."

­New York Magazine, Oct. 7, 1996

"The Council on Foreign Relations is the American branch of a society which originated in England in 1919 [and] believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one­world rule established"

­Barry Goldwater

"...This regionalization is in keeping with the Tri­Lateral Plan which calls for a gradual convergence of East and West, ultimately leading toward the goal of "one world government.'...National sovereignty is no longer a viable concept..."

­Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter.

"Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose.... The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history."

­David Rockefeller, 1973

by John K. Whitley, from the New World Order Intelligence Update's compilation of Bilderberg articles:

[...]

Respected author Malachi Martin, who has top­level connections in the Vatican and around the world, has written a number of interesting and revealing books on international politics and the Roman Catholic church and Pontiff. In THE KEYS OF THIS BLOOD, which centres on the life and connections of the present Pope, Martin made this intriguing statement:

"Television commentator Bill Moyers found out during a fifteen­day, globe­spanning trip in the company of David Rockefeller that 'just about a dozen or fifteen individuals made day­to­day decisions that regulated the flow of capital and goods throughout the entire world.'"

He quotes Bill Moyers himself as saying:

"David Rockefeller is the most conspicuous representative today of the ruling class, a multinational fraternity of men who shape the global economy and manage the flow of its capital. Rockefeller was born to it, and he has made the most of it. But what some critics see as a vast international conspiracy, he considers a circumstance of life and just another day's work... In the world of David Rockefeller it's hard to tell where business ends and politics begins."

from comminc@webaccess.net via Usenet:

"But this present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for long. Already there are powerful forces at work that threaten to destroy all of our hopes and efforts to erect an enduring structure of global interdependence."

­David Rockefeller, speaking at the Business Council for the United Nations, September 14, 1994.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/shadow/s03b.htm

3/12

11/10/2016

TRUE DEMOCRACY SUMMER 2001

The following statement by David Rockefeller indicates his understanding of the need for businessmen to be politicians:

"....[I]n recent years, business leaders appear to have devoted themselves to making more and more money, and find themselves with less and less time to devote to civic and social responsibilities and to sinking roots in their communities and showing their loyalty.

The danger, if this current self­serving behavior continues, is that the voice of business will become more muted and the views of business more irrelevant to the important issues of the day. We will find ourselves increasingly marginalized and without the moral authority to demand a hearing from government or the people.

"The profit motive provides the discipline for achievement, but individual goals are formed by the larger society. Our achievements as business leaders only have meaning and value if they embrace and mirror the needs and objectives of the broader society."

from the Associated Press, 1999­Mar­15:

Trilateral Commission reaches out to others

WASHINGTON (AP) ­ The Trilateral Commission, long an exclusive club of influential citizens from the world's most powerful nations, is reaching out to other countries to help find ways to foster democracy and economic freedom.

While leading figures from nonmember countries like China, Korea, Russia and Ukraine cannot become members of the commission, which meets annually to discuss the future of the world, they sat at the table for this year's meetings in Washington, which ended Monday. ``We have taken steps importantly to extend the range of the discussion ... to people outside the traditional trilateral areas,'' said former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, leader of the U.S. contingent in one of the world's most prestigious gatherings. The commission, founded 26 years ago by banker David Rockefeller, includes more than 300 mostly private citizens from the United States, Canada, Europe and Japan.

Volcker, at a closing news conference that attracted only a handful of journalists, said three days of discussions that involved about half the council's membership reached no conclusions. Sessions are closed to news coverage, although security is not tight and some media figures belong to the commission.

Membership includes academics and industrial and former political leaders. Current members of national governments are excluded.

"The Trilateral Commission doesn't make any recommendations on anything," Volcker said ­ particularly not on reform of exchange rates or the world financial system, which were among topics briefly discussed at the meeting.

Otto Graf Lambsdorff, European chairman and former German Bundestag member, said China was the focus of much discussion, again with no consensus reached. He said, however, that no one opposed cooperation with China and no one said China should not respect human rights.

Volcker said the participation of representatives from several nonmember countries enhanced the discussions and will continue at future annual sessions, held alternatively in the United States, Japan and Europe. ``You have the opportunity of changing thinking,'' said Volcker, assessing the value of the meetings. "I would hope that there is some kind of changing in thinking, a convergence of thought, because people are affected by the discussions, but it's not directed deliberately towards a particular end, other than the fostering of democracy and economic development around the world."

The Japanese commission chairman, Yotaro Kobayashi, head of Fuji Xerox Co., Ltd., said, `"Having more participants from outside ... has only enriched the course of the discussions."

John McManus President of the John Birch Society http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/shadow/s03b.htm

4/12

11/10/2016

TRUE DEMOCRACY SUMMER 2001

Who is Running America?

excerpted from the online version of The Insiders ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

The Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission

Most Americans have never heard of these two organizations. But knowing something about them is essential to understanding what has been going on in America for several decades. So, let us examine, first, the Council on Foreign Relations and then...the Trilateral Commission.

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) The Council on Foreign Relations (7) was incorporated in 1921. It is a private group which is headquartered at the corner of Park Avenue and 68th Street in New York City, in a building given to the organization in 1929.

The CFR's founder, Edward Mandell House, had been the chief adviser of President Woodrow Wilson. House was not only Wilson's most prominent aide, he actually dominated the President. Woodrow Wilson referred to House as "my alter ego" (my other self), and it is totally accurate to say that House, not Wilson, was the most powerful individual in our nation during the Wilson Administration, from 1913 until 1921.

Unfortunately for America, it is also true that Edward Mandell House was a Marxist whose goal was to socialize the United States. In 1912 House wrote the book, Philip Dru: Administrator; In it, he said he was working for "Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx." The original edition of the book did not name House as its author, but he made it clear in numerous ways that he indeed was its creator.

In Philip Dru: Administrator, Edward Mandell House laid out a fictionalized plan for the conquest of America. He told of a "conspiracy" (the word is his) which would gain control of both the Democratic and Republican parties, and use them as instruments in the creation of a socialistic world government.

The book called for passage of a graduated income tax and for the establishment of a state­controlled central bank as steps toward the ultimate goal. Both of these proposals are planks in The Communist Manifesto. And both became law in 1913, during the very first year of the House­dominated Wilson Administration.

The House plan called for the United States to give up its sovereignty to the League of Nations at the close of World War I. But when the U.S. Senate refused to ratify America's entry into the League, Edward Mandell House's drive toward world government was slowed down. Disappointed, but not beaten, House and his friends then formed the Council on Foreign Relations, whose purpose right from its inception was to destroy the freedom and independence of the United States and lead our nation into a world government­if not through the League of Nations, then through another world organization that would be started after another world war. The control of that world government, of course, was to be in the hands of House and like­ minded individuals.

From its beginning in 1921, the CFR began to attract men of power and influence. In the late 1920s, important financing for the CFR came from the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Foundation. In 1940, at the invitation of President Roosevelt, members of the CFR gained domination over the State Department, and they have maintained that domination ever since.

By 1944, Edward Mandell House was deceased but his plan for taking control of our nation's major political parties began to be realized. In 1944 and in 1948, the Republican candidate for President, Thomas Dewey, was a CFR member. In later years, the CFR could boast that Republicans Eisenhower and Nixon were members, as were Democrats Stevenson, Kennedy, Humphrey, and McGovern. The American people were told they had a choice when they voted for President. But with precious few exceptions, Presidential candidates for decades have been CFR members.

But the CFR's influence had also spread to other vital areas of American life. Its members have run, or are running, NBC and CBS, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Des Moines Register, and many other important newspapers. The leaders of Time, Life, Newsweek, Fortune, Business Week, and numerous other publications are CFR members. The organization's members also dominate the academic world, top corporations, the huge tax­exempt foundations, labor unions, the military, and just about every segment of American life. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/shadow/s03b.htm

5/12

11/10/2016

TRUE DEMOCRACY SUMMER 2001

Let's look at the Council's Annual Report published in 1978. The organization's membership list names 1,878 members, and the list reads like a Who's Who in America. Eleven CFR members are U.S. senators; even more congressmen belong to the organization. Sitting on top of this immensely powerful pyramid, as Chairman of the Board, is David Rockefeller.

As can be seen in that CFR Annual Report, 284 of its members are U.S. government officials. Any organization which can boast that 284 of its members are U.S. government officials should be well­known. Yet most Americans have never even heard of the Council on Foreign Relations.

One reason why this is so is that 171 journalists, correspondents and communications executives are also CFR members, and they don't write about the organization. In fact, CFR members rarely talk about the organization inasmuch as it is an express condition of membership that any disclosure of what goes on at CFR meetings shall be regarded as grounds for termination of membership.

...The CFR publishes a very informative quarterly journal called Foreign Affairs. More often than not, important new shifts in U.S. policy or highly indicative attitudes of political figures have been telegraphed in its pages. When he was preparing to run for the Presidency in 1967, for instance Richard Nixon made himself acceptable to the Insiders of the Establishment with an article in the October 1967 issue of Foreign Affairs. (l4) In it, he called for a new policy of openness toward Red China, a policy which he himself later initiated in 1972.

The April 1974 issue of Foreign Affairs carried a very explicit recommendation for carrying out the world­government scheme of CFR founder Edward Mandell House. Authored by State Department veteran and Columbia University Professor Richard N. Gardner (himself a CFR member), "The Hard Road to World Order" admits that a single leap into world government via an organization like the United Nations is unrealistic. (15)

Instead, Gardner urged the continued piecemeal delivery of our nation's sovereignty to a variety of international organizations He called for an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece." That means an end to our nation's sovereignty.

And he named as organizations to accomplish his goal the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the Law of the Sea Conference, the World Food Conference, the World Population Conference, disarmament programs, and a United Nations military force. This approach, Gardner said, "can produce some remarkable concessions of sovereignty that could not be achieved on an across­the­board basis."

Richard Gardner's preference for destroying the freedom and independence of the United States in favor of the CFR's goal of world government thoroughly dominates top circles in our nation today. The men who would scrap our nation's Constitution are praised as "progressives" and "far­sighted thinkers." The only question that remains among these powerful Insiders is which method to use to carry out their treasonous plan.

The Trilateral Commission

Unfortunately, the Council on Foreign Relations is not the only group proposing an end to the sovereignty of the United States.

In 1973, another organization which now thoroughly dominates the Carter Administration first saw the light of day. Also based in New York City, this one is called the Trilateral Commission.

The Trilateral Commission's roots stem from the book Between Two Ages (16) written by Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1970. The following quotations from that book show how closely Brzezinski's thinking parallels that of CFR founder Edward Mandell House.

On page 72, Brzezinski writes: "Marxism is simultaneously a victory of the external, active man over the inner, passive man and a victory of reason over belief."

On page 83, he states: "Marxism, disseminated on the popular level in the form of Communism, represented a major advance in man's ability to conceptualize his relationship to his world."

And on page 123, we find: "Marxism supplied the best available insight into contemporary reality."

Nowhere does Mr. Brzezinski tell his readers that the Marxism "in the form of Communism," which he praises, has been responsible for the murder of approximately 100 million human beings in the Twentieth Century, has brought about the enslavement of over a billion more, and has caused want, privation and despair for all but the few criminals who run the communist­dominated nations.

On page 198, after discussing America's shortcomings, Brzezinski writes: "America is undergoing a new revolution" which "unmasks its obsolescence." We disagree; America is not becoming obsolete.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/shadow/s03b.htm

6/12

11/10/2016

TRUE DEMOCRACY SUMMER 2001

On page 260, he proposes "Deliberate management of the American future...with the...planner as the key social legislator and manipulator." The central planning he wants for our country is a cardinal underpinning of communism and the opposite of the way things are done in a free country.

On page 296, Mr. Brzezinski suggests piecemeal "Movement toward a larger community of the developed nations...through a variety of indirect ties and already developing limitations on national sovereignty." Here, we have the same proposal that has been offered by Richard Gardner in the CFR publication Foreign Affairs.

Brzezinski then calls for the forging of community links among the United States, Western Europe, and Japan; and the extension of these links to more advanced communist countries. Finally, on page 308 of his 309­page hook, he lets us know that what he really wants is "the goal of world government".

A Meeting of Minds

Zbigniew Brzezinski's Between Two Ages was published in 1970 while he was a professor in New York City. What happened, quite simply, is that David Rockefeller read the book. And, in 1973, Mr. Rockefeller launched the new Trilateral Commission whose purposes include linking North America, Western Europe, and Japan "in their economic relations, their political and defense relations, their relations with developing countries, and their relations with communist countries." (l7)

The original literature of the Trilateral Commission also states, exactly as Brzezinski's book had proposed, that the more advanced communist states could become partners in the alliance leading to world government. In short, David Rockefeller implemented Brzezinski's proposal. The only change was the addition of Canada, so that the Trilateral Commission presently includes members from North America, Western Europe, and Japan, not just the United States, Western Europe, and Japan.

Then, David Rockefeller hired Zbigniew Brzezinski away from Columbia University and appointed him to be the Director of the Trilateral Commission.

...As with the CFR, we do not believe that every member of the Trilateral Commission is fully committed to the destruction of the United States. Some of these men actually believe that the world would be a better place if the United States would give up its independence in the interests of world government. Others go along for the ride, a ride which means a ticket to fame, comfortable living, and constant flattery. Some, of course, really do run things and really do want to scrap our nation's independence.

What It All Means

...The Council on Foreign Relations was conceived by a Marxist, Edward Mandell House, for the purpose of creating a one­ world government by destroying the freedom and independence of all nations, especially including our own. Its Chairman of the Board is David Rockefeller. And its members have immense control over our government and much of American life.

The Trilateral Commission was conceived by Zbigniew Brzezinski, who praises Marxism, who thinks the United States is becoming obsolete, and who also wants to create a one­world government. Its founder and driving force is also David Rockefeller. And it, too, exercises extraordinary control over the government of the United States.

The effect of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission on the affairs of our nation is easy to see. Our own government no longer acts in its own interest; we no longer win any wars we fight; and we constantly tie ourselves to international agreements, pacts and conventions.

From the November 25, 1996 issue of The New American:

To many in C­SPAN's television audience, the October 11th broadcast of the Council on Foreign Relation's colloquium on terrorism may have seemed to provide a timely and informed focus on one of the most pressing security concerns of our day.

However, for those familiar with the CFR's globalist agenda and its long history of supporting and legitimizing terrorist regimes and organizations (not to mention sanitizing individual terrorist leaders), the conference was about as believable as a professional wrestling match.

The analogy is especially apropos when considering "main events" such as the Council's C­SPAN confab entitled "Combating Terrorism: What Works? What Doesn't?" To a foreigner or a visitor from another planet who has never seen a professional wrestling match before, the bizarre behemoths in the ring with their bulging musculature and raging rodomontades are impressive indeed ­ on first sight. It doesn't take a cerebral titan, though, to soon realize that this is all show, and that Hulk Hogan, Jake the Snake, the Undertaker, and the rest of the mastodons of the All­Star Wrestling steroid menagerie, take their http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/shadow/s03b.htm

7/12

11/10/2016

TRUE DEMOCRACY SUMMER 2001

falls and their wins according to script. After witnessing a few dozen such rigged spectacles, even the most mentally challenged of fans knows he is watching a farce.

Foreign Relations Charade The CFR's terrorism palaver was just such a farce. Broadcast from Washington DC's Grand Hyatt Hotel, the program featured a lineup of participants calculated to awe the uninitiated. Adorned with impressive resumés boasting service in high government posts and other key centers of power, these were obvious heavyweight contenders. And while they did engage (albeit sedately) in occasional verbal sparring amongst themselves, it was clear to the discerning that their intellectual muscle flexing was aimed primarily at convincing the American public that this "diverse" representation of the Council's expertise was united in a determination to help formulate and implement measures that are tough on terrorists and yet still compatible with liberty.

Kicking off this ostentatious affair was Council on Foreign Relations president Leslie Gelb, who is as improbable a champion of national security as we are likely to find. Those who remember the Vietnam War may also recall Mr. Gelb's role in the publication of the top­secret Pentagon Papers, one of the most far­reaching security breaches in U.S. history. That treachery took place while Gelb served as a "whiz kid" in the Defense Department under Robert S. McNamara (CFR). Implicated with Gelb in this infamous leak were Daniel Ellsberg, Morton Halperin, Paul Warnke, and Richard J. Barnet, CFR members all.

They were (and are) all ultra left­wing extremists, openly associated with the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), the notorious Marxist think tank with long­established connections to the Soviet KGB and Cuban DGI. CFR members Cora Weiss and Richard Barnet were among the many IPS officials who made the Jane Fonda­Tom Hayden pilgrimage to Hanoi and assisted the North Vietnamese Communist government. It was IPS director Richard Barnet who delivered the Pentagon Papers to the CFR­dominated New York Times and Washington Post. And it was thanks to the collusion of Chief Judge Henry J. Friendly (CFR) and Judge David Bazelon (IPS), presiding respectively over the appeals of the Times and the Post, that the federal injunction against printing the sensitive documents ­ including secret codes ­ was lifted.

This CFR/IPS symbiosis continues to the present and has been especially noteworthy for its destructive impact on U.S. intelligence and national security, and for the tremendous assistance it has provided to the terrorist organizations whose work the CFR supposedly opposes. Mr. Gelb, whose sterling vita includes stints at the Brookings Institution, the Carnegie Endowment, and the New York Times, once asserted that the radically subversive IPS is "one of three preeminent centers for foreign policy perspectives." Presumably, one of the other two "preeminent centers" is the CFR, which described itself in literature for the program as "a nonprofit, nonpartisan membership organization, dedicated to improving the understanding of U.S. foreign policy and international affairs through the exchange of ideas."

Such modesty. Washington Post ombudsman Richard Harwood has more accurately described the CFR as "the nearest thing we have to a ruling establishment in the United States." Sociologist C. Wright Mills referred to its membership as "the American power elite." The late Admiral Chester Ward, who was himself a CFR member for 16 years before becoming a staunch critic of the organization, charged that the CFR's leaders were a bunch of "one­world global­government ideologists" committed to "promoting disarmament and submergence of U.S. sovereignty and independence into an all­powerful one­world government." Certainly none can deny that the Council's more than 3,000 members hold unparalleled influence over the executive branch of the federal government (starting at the White House with CFR member Bill Clinton), the national media, and much of the corporate, financial, and philanthropic worlds. Knowledgeable observers of American power politics understand full well that it is the Harold Pratt House (CFR headquarters in New York), not the White House, which is the center of U.S. political power.

Gelb's accession to the CFR presidency helps to illustrate the reach and workings of the Council's power network. Gelb replaced Peter Tarnoff as the top executive at Pratt House, while Tarnoff took the job as assistant to Secretary of State Warren Christopher (former CFR vice chairman).

Panel of "Experts" At the October 11th CFR exhibition at DC's Grand Hyatt, after a brief introduction on the need "to cope with the problem of terrorism with bluster, ideology, and politics aside," Gelb turned the show over to Dave McCurdy (CFR), chairman of the Council's Policy Impact Panel on Terrorism. A seven­term, ultra­liberal congressman from Oklahoma, McCurdy was defeated in his 1994 run for the U.S. Senate by conservative Representative James Inhofe. Joining McCurdy on the panel were Kenneth L. Adelman (CFR), former director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and Nadine Strossen (CFR), national president of the American Civil Liberties Union and professor of law at the New York Law School.

The five "expert witnesses" speaking before the CFR panel were: Brian Jenkins, former Rand Corp. associate and deputy chairman of Kroll Associates (a CFR corporate member); L. Paul Bremer III (CFR), former Ambassador­at­Large for Counter http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/shadow/s03b.htm

8/12

11/10/2016

TRUE DEMOCRACY SUMMER 2001

Terrorism and managing director of Kissinger Associates; Shibley Telhami (CFR), associate professor of government and director of Near Eastern Studies at Cornell University; Wolfgang H. Reinicke, senior research staff member at the liberal­left Brookings Institution; and Jamie S. Gorelick, U.S. Deputy Attorney General.

Considering the CFR sponsorship of the symposium and the overwhelming representation of the Council's membership among the formal participants, it was certain that the "consensus" of the esteemed experts would reflect the official CFR line.

A central theme of that orchestrated consensus which forms the substrate of all conceptual thinking and policy decision­ making with regard to foreign policy and national security is the tiresome ­ and utterly false ­ refrain that "Communism is dead." Repeated references were made to the "collapse of the Soviet Union" and "the end of the bipolar structure of the international system."

CFR policy elites in government, academe, industry, and the media have been the primary apostles responsible for the near total acceptance of this false gospel today. Take, for example, Dave McCurdy's article "The Evolving U.S. Policy Toward Ukraine," published in the Winter­Spring 1994 issue of SAIS Review, journal of the School of Advanced International Studies at John Hopkins University. According to McCurdy, the people of Ukraine have "severed their bonds to the former USSR and embarked on a risky journey toward self­determination and freedom for the first time in generations. The steward of this new ship of state is Ukrainian President Leonid Kravchuk.... Kravchuk is an ardent Ukrainian nationalist, dedicated to the survival of his country, but he has proved himself a moderate as well."

McCurdy's assertions are completely absurd and a puerile parroting of Soviet strategic deception. The false "independence" of Ukraine and the other "independent republics" is as patently fraudulent as Kravchuk's "nationalism." Kravchuk ­ like his successor, Kuchma ­ is a lifelong communist who participated for decades in the totalitarian subjugation of his people and is today playing the role of "moderate" while maintaining an iron grip on the Soviet police state system which is, in reality, still very much a part of the "collapsed USSR." Comrades Yeltsin and Kravchuk are more than willing to allow McCurdy and his CFR associates to devise plans to send them billions of American taxpayer dollars in aid to promote "reform" and "stability."

Having Americans pay for our own destruction even as we celebrate "winning the Cold War" is the ultimate in sweet irony for the Soviet strategists. And the CFR elites are leading us headlong in a mad rush toward that destruction.

An essential part of that strategic deception involves the continued covert Soviet sponsorship of terrorism worldwide. During the 1960s and '70s, as international terrorism spread its global carnage, the CFR "wise men" challenged the charges that the Soviet Union, acting through its surrogates in Eastern Europe, Cuba, Syria, Iraq, and Libya, was behind the havoc. When the evidence became overwhelming, the CFR "conservatives" acknowledged the Soviet hand in the global terrorist scourge while the CFR "liberals" remained in denial.

Readers may recall that it was Warren Christopher's (CFR) "diplomacy" under President Carter that brought about the overthrow of two of America's strongest allies, the Shah of Iran and President Somoza of Nicaragua, and the installation of the terrorist regimes under Ayatollah Khomeini and the Sandanistas, respectively, in those countries.

During the Reagan years, Secretary of State George Shultz (CFR) made moves to recognize Yasser Arafat and even sent ships to rescue Arafat and his Soviet­supplied Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) henchmen when they were trapped in Lebanon and facing annihilation by Israel and rival groups. Arafat's closest friend and the PLO's intelligence chief, Hani el­ Hassan, was for many years an agent for Nicolai Ceausescu's DIE, which operated under direction of the Soviet KGB. Under the close supervision of Soviet agents Alexander Soldatov and Vladimir Buljakov, Arafat's PLO became the Kremlin's premier terrorist organization against the Free World.

But using the same phony "break with the past" deception strategy employed to sell Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Kravchuk, et al to a gullible West, Arafat has joined the ranks of "former" terrorists who have been anointed as national leaders by the CFR ruling elites. Like Nelson Mandela and Jean Bertrand Aristide, he has ridden the terrorist road to power and has received the same royal treatment from the Pratt House cabal.

Good Cop, Bad Cop Current mythology has it that "pragmatic," "moderate" Arafat is beset by the radical Hamas, over which he has no control. In reality, as Christopher Story has aptly noted in his newsletter Soviet Analyst, "Hamas (and its subdivisions) is and always has been an integral component of the umbrella organization known as the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which reports directly to Moscow." Additional support for that view came last year when Hamas official Mousa Abu Marzook and his wife were arrested in New York at JFK Airport. Marzook's address book contained the private telephone numbers of Yasser Arafat, George Habash, and other Marxist terrorists with whom this "fundamentalist" is supposedly in deadly conflict. Earlier this year, Arafat put on a show of searching for Hamas military chief Mohammed Dief. Arafat's man assigned to head the unsuccessful "search," Colonel Mohammed Dahlan, a childhood friend of Dief, was seen sipping coffee with the "fugitive" terrorist supervisor.

Arafat and his Moscow handlers are employing the classic "good cop, bad cop" tactic. That became all the more obvious on http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/shadow/s03b.htm

9/12

11/10/2016

TRUE DEMOCRACY SUMMER 2001

January 9th of this year when Boris Yeltsin elevated top Soviet intelligence chief Yevgeny Primakov to the post of Foreign Minister. As one of the KGB's top Arabists, Primakov has long been associated with the terrorist regimes of Iraq and Syria and was Moscow's primary paymaster to Arafat's PLO and Habash's PFLP. These facts, of course, are censored in the delusional drivelings of the CFR media cartel, where Primakov is presented as one of Russia's "progressives." Thus, when Boris Yeltsin held Arafat's hand high in the air at the "anti­terrorism" summit at Sharm El Sheik on March 13th this year and proclaimed that they were joining the leaders from 27 other countries in a pledge "to work together against terrorism," the prostitute CFR press greeted the obvious lie with euphoric huzzahs.

Every mention of the sacrosanct "Middle East Peace Process" at the CFR confab also required a ritual genuflection from all concerned. And why not? The whole process has been a CFR creation. The chief "negotiator" (read: arm twister) for the affair has been (who else) Secretary of State Warren Christopher. Heading up Christopher's Mideast negotiating team are: Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs Edward Djerejian, Special Middle East Coordinator Dennis Ross, and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs Dan Kurtzer, all members of the CFR. These and other State Department participants have been regulars at CFR meetings over the past two years, where members receive privy information on the secret negotiations.

This relationship between the official and private policy elites at the CFR was taken to new highs (or lows) when the Council, together with the World Economic Forum, sponsored the first­ever Middle East­North Africa (MENA) Economic Summit at Casablanca, Morocco in October 1994. The glorious soiree at the Royal Palace of King Hassan II constituted a veritable "Who's Who" of global political and business elites, and was used to further sanctify Arafat and to set in motion plans for a Common Market for the Middle East. Of course, U.S. tax dollars and U.S. troops and armaments will guarantee this venture.

Subsidizing Saddam During the Presidency of George Bush (CFR), Saddam Hussein, everyone's favorite terrorist scapegoat, was the secret recipient of incredible military aid from the United States. Investigations by the House Banking Committee and various journalists have amply documented an amazing trail of treachery and treasonous actions by Bush and his one­world retinue before, during, and after the Persian Gulf War. This sordid affair has been comprehensively exposed in two books: Spider's Web: The Secret History of How the White House Illegally Armed Iraq, by Alan Friedman of the Financial Times of London (1994, Bantam); and Shell Game, by Peter Mantius (1995, St. Martin's Press). The evidence is clear that the U.S. assisted Iraq in obtaining cluster bombs, technology for nuclear enrichment, U.S.­designed munitions, missile technology, some $5 billion in loan guarantees, and much more, in spite of Saddam's open hatred of the U.S. and his wanton use of poison gas against his own civilian population. When the shooting started in Operation Desert Storm, President Bush's CFR coterie had us bedding down with Assad of Syria, Saddam's rival for the title of "Maximum Terrorist Leader." That has carried over into the present Administration, naturally, with President Clinton and Secretary of State Warren Christopher going to fantastic lengths to coddle Assad, who still hosts an unimaginable menagerie of terrorist groups.

Soviet Legal Aid All participants in the CFR's Policy Impact Panel were in agreement that "better intelligence" is essential to effectively cope with the terrorist threat. This, of course, is laughable in view of the enormous destructive campaign waged by top CFR members and the communist subversives they have promoted, supported, and protected against America's internal security organs and our legitimate intelligence interests.

The inclusion of the ACLU's Nadine Strossen as one of the CFR panel's three members is itself evidence of the Council's transparent hypocrisy. The Communist Party itself could not come close to accomplishing for the Kremlin what the closet Reds in the ACLU and their dupes have achieved. Since its inception in the early years of this century, the ACLU has led the revolutionary vanguard in attacking all police and intelligence agencies and providing assistance to communists, anarchists, terrorists, and subversives of every stripe, virtually without exception. Besides longtime executive director and founder Roger Baldwin, other Communist Party members of the organization's original executive board included William Z. Foster, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, and Louis Budenz.

Although the ACLU has attempted to portray itself as a mainstream champion of constitutional rights, it remains one of the most radical and subversive organizations in America today. Together with the Institute for Policy Studies and the National Lawyers Guild, the ACLU has spun an immense web of anti­police and anti­intelligence organizations which have worked closely with assets of the Soviet KGB and other communist intelligence agencies to foment revolution and render America blind to the forces which plot her destruction.

The Halperin Record The CFR has had more than its share of Soviet spies and communist agents. Alger Hiss, Viginius Coe, Noel Field, Nathan http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/shadow/s03b.htm

10/12

11/10/2016

TRUE DEMOCRACY SUMMER 2001

Silvermaster, Victor Perlo, Harry Dexter White, and Soloman Adler are but a few of the notorious CFR Reds who have done real harm to our nation. More recently the Council has been able to boast among its membership such militant Marxists as Morton Halperin, Cora Weiss, Richard Barnet, and Daniel Ellsberg. The efforts of prominent Council members in the 1993 campaign to install the radical Halperin as President Clinton's Assistant Secretary of Defense established another benchmark in the CFR's subversion tally.

As an ACLU staff member and chairman of the Campaign to Stop Government Spying, Halperin worked closely with Frank Wilkinson, Frank Donner, and other militant Communist Party members to undermine American security. Halperin helped raise funds for the Socialist Workers Party's (SWP) lawsuits against the FBI and other law enforcement agencies. The SWP is a Trotskyite terrorist organization of the Communist Fourth International. When CIA traitor and self­professed communist Phillip Agee needed a lawyer, Comrade Mort flew to England to represent him. Those are but a few highlights from Halperin's "distinguished" career which commended him for one of the most sensitive security offices in the Clinton Administration. At least that is what CFR Vice President Alton Frye apparently thought. Frye and CFR members Jeremy Stone and Arnold Kanter sent out a letter to their one­world brethren in defense of Halperin's beleaguered nomination. Halperin is now a "senior fellow" on the staff of the CFR.

Phony Concern Striking the pose of guardian of the Constitution ­ a familiar guise of ACLU radicals ­ Nadine Strossen proclaimed to the panel and C­SPAN audience that her "central concern here is that whatever steps we take to combat terrorism do not compromise our fundamental rights." That must have been reassuring to many who have been watching with mounting concern over the past year and a half as the President and Congress have utilized every real and alleged terrorist threat as an excuse to centralize more police powers in Washington.

But the ACLU has been cloaking its Bolshevism under a banner of patriotism since its very inception. It was Roger Baldwin himself who advised Louis Lochner of the communist People's Council in a letter back in August 1917: Do steer away from making it [the People's Council] look like a Socialist enterprise. Too many people have already gotten the idea that it is nine­tenths a Socialist movement....

We want also to look like patriots in everything we do. We want to get a lot of good flags, talk a good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make of this country, and to show that we are the folks that really stand for the spirit of our institutions.

This same revered ACLU icon later said, "I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself.... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth.

Communism is the goal." Comrade Baldwin's successors at the ACLU helm have never been as candid, but they have always shown unmistakably by their actions that their goal is the same.

The ACLU and its IPS network, with the protective cover it has received from the CFR­led media and the funding it has received from the CFR­dominated tax­exempt foundations, have for decades been carrying out a relentless attack on America's ability to defend itself against terrorism. This same collectivist cabal has been simultaneously "transforming" the world's most infamous terrorists and their even more nefarious sponsors into paragons of blissful harmony and peace. Such fiendish alchemy cannot continue forever. Unless this dangerous diabolism is exposed ­ and soon ­ America is certain to reap a terrorist whirlwind of apocalyptic proportions. ­ William F. Jasper [Ed's note: Elizabeth Gurley Flynn was imprisoned under the Smith Act read The Rebel Girl: An Autobiography by Elizabeth Gurley Flynn ©1955 International Publishers New York for what her life was like as an activist and a political prisoner who was taken away from her family in New York to West Virginia for several years after she was convicted under this Act; no Council of Foreign Relations member has ever been imprisoned to my knowledge; Alger Hiss was imprisoned also under questionable circumstances as he maintained his innocence throughout his life. Mr. Hiss and his new wife lived next door to me at 157 East 18th Street, New York, NY 10003 in a one bedroom apartment that was rent controlled, far different from the luxury of Henry Kissinger or David Rockefeller who are the real criminals. Mr. Hiss and his wife did own a dwelling in the Hamptons on Long Island which I never saw but it is my understanding that Mr. Hiss sold pencils when he finally was released from prison; Frank Wilkinson's life has been attempted many times. That he has survived is a miracle. I find it very strange that these people should be named by the forgoing author as these people would seem to be reputable.]

Part 3 of this ARTICLE

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/shadow/s03b.htm

11/12

11/10/2016

TRUE DEMOCRACY SUMMER 2001

PREVIOUS ARTICLE NEXT ARTICLE Zbigniew Brzezinski and The Trilateral Commission

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/shadow/s03b.htm

12/12

11/10/2016

TRUE DEMOCRACY SUMMER 2001

TRUE DEMOCRACY SUMMER 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE SECRET SHADOW GOVERNMENT The Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission part 3

The Clinton Administration's Terrorism Connections On October 11th, U.S. Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick appeared before the Council on Foreign Relations' Policy Impact Panel on Terrorism to outline the Clinton Administration's record on combating terrorism. According to Ms. Gorelick, the Clinton terrorism policy involves these three core elements: * To do "everything we can to deter and to prevent terrorist acts." * To "respond quickly, decisively, and with a full range of law enforcement and other options that are available." * To "work with our friends around the world to interdict terrorists and to assure that they do not go unpunished."

As with President Clinton's September 24th warning to drug traffickers and terrorists that "you have no place to run, you have no place to hide," Gorelick's election­year boilerplate is not likely to strike mortal fear into the hearts of terrorists anywhere.

Likewise, Clinton's September speech to the United Nations declaring "zero tolerance for aggression, terrorism, and lawless behavior" must have set new highs on global laugh meters. Let us consider the real Clinton record on terrorism and national security.

Administration Appointments

While the problem of security risks occupying sensitive government positions is not unique to this Administration, President Clinton has set a record for recruiting hardcore radicals from Marxist outfits such as the terrorist­friendly Institute for Policy Studies. Undoubtedly the full extent of this scandal will prove to be far worse than the already frightening facts of which we are aware. Most of the subversive iceberg remains hidden because Mr. Clinton has not conducted the required security checks on many of his appointees. Among the most visibly dangerous of the Clinton appointments are: * Warren Christopher (CFR). According to this Secretary of State, "rogue states" such as Libya, Iraq, and Iran are beyond the pale. But terror regimes such as Russia, China, Syria, South Africa, Angola, Vietnam, Georgia, Armenia, North Korea, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, etc., are worthy of lavish largesse under the rubric of "engagement." * Anthony Lake (CFR). A longtime associate of the IPS, Lake was involved with Gelb, Halperin, Warnke, and Ellsberg in the Pentagon Papers leak. He also worked at the IPS' Center for International Policy with Orlando Letelier, the Chilean communist and Cuban DGI agent ­ just the sort of pedigree one might expect for Mr. Clinton's Assistant for National Security Affairs. * Strobe Talbott (CFR). One of Bill Clinton's Oxford roommates and fellow pilgrims to Russia, Talbott translated Khrushchev's memoirs into a glowing English hagiography for Time magazine in 1970 ­ with roommate Clinton's help. That first exercise in Soviet propaganda no doubt served well in preparing them both for their present roles. In a July 20, 1992 Time essay entitled "The Birth of the Global Nation," Talbott wrote that the time is quickly approaching in which "nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. A phrase briefly fashionable in the mid­20th­century ­ 'citizen of the world' ­ will have assumed real meaning...." http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/shadow/s03c.htm

1/10

11/10/2016

TRUE DEMOCRACY SUMMER 2001

* Derek Shearer. Shearer is a founder of the radical Campaign for Economic Democracy and one of the IPS network's leading apostles for the subversive theories of Italian Communist Party strategist Antonio Gramsci. One of his major claims to fame was the popularization of "economic democracy" as a replacement term for the "s" word: socialism. Such creative subtlety first earned Shearer a slot as economic adviser to the Clinton campaign and then an ambassadorship to Denmark, where he is undoubtedly happy as a clam living next to Mother Russia.

* Robert Borosage. An IPS director who traveled to Nicaragua and praised the Sandinista communists, Borosage also was co­director with Morton Halperin of the IPS' Center for National Security Studies in its subversive attacks on police, the FBI, the CIA, and congressional investigative bodies. Admitting that the IPS intended to "move the Democratic Party's debate internally to the left by creating an invisible presence in the party," Borosage became a foreign policy adviser to Jesse Jackson and then senior policy adviser to Mr. Clinton.

[Ed's note: Antonio Gramshi was imprisoned in Italy according to one of my political science professors who did his dissertation on Antonio Gramsci, Paulo Freire, and Herbert Marcuse to successfully defend that dissertation to obtain his Ph.D. He ultimately was a tenured professor at UCLA.]

Globalist Advance

With assistance and counsel from CFR elites in key White House positions, the Clinton Administration has openly embraced and helped legitimize some of the most blatant terrorist nations and groups, including: * Syria. This totalitarian dictatorship has been for many years one of the most dangerous villains on the U.S. State Department's list of nations engaged in state sponsored terrorism. Damascus is a veritable Terrorists­R­Us bazaar, providing permanent residence to dozens of murderous groups with thousands of fanatic assassins. Fronting for the Soviets, Hafez Assad and his Al­Kassar crime network made Syria the premier narcotics trader in the Middle East. Damascus also possesses a major chemical and biological weapons arsenal, which Washington conveniently overlooks, even though it makes a point of nailing less favored regimes on the same issue. No matter, the Clinton Administration insists that Assad must be part of the phony "peace process" and has shamelessly courted Damascus with over 30 excursions by Warren Christopher to this ruthless, two­bit narco­terrorist prison­state. * Iran. While continuing the illegal UN arms embargo against Bosnia, the Administration gave its tacit approval to Iran's secret arms shipments to Sarajevo, thus guaranteeing that Tehran's virulent, anti­U.S. influence would infect Bosnia's Muslims. At the same time, it has done nothing to stop Russia and China from providing Iran with nuclear reactors. Nor has it attempted to halt Beijing's delivery of poison gas facilities, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles to Iran, or stop "ally" Syria from collaborating with North Korea on new missile development. * Northern Ireland. President Clinton has repeatedly welcomed the Irish Republican Army's Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams to the U.S. and to the White House, even as the IRA has stepped up its terror bombings and riots in Ireland and England.

Britain's MI5 and MI6 and other Western intelligence agencies have been tracking the travels of IRA terrorists to Iran and Libya for years and the smuggling back to Britain and Ireland of drugs, arms, and explosives by IRA operatives. In November 1993, IRA bosses flew to a secret Tehran summit featuring terrorist leaders from all over the world which was a springboard for a new global offensive. While Adams did not attend that convocation, he has been to Tehran as an honored guest of Iran's terror regime. * Russia. Despite the fact that the Soviet KGB and GRU have been for decades the premiere trainers and supporters of terrorist organizations worldwide, the Clinton coterie and its media allies perpetuate the fatal fantasy that Moscow has gone out of the terror business. In recent months, Russian Foreign Minister and KGB veteran Yevgeny Primakov has been making the rounds of the pariah states, cementing old ties he developed decades ago as the Kremlin's Mideast terrorist paymaster.

Mr. Clinton has romanced and endorsed Yeltsin in spite of revelations that members of his government armed and trained the Aum Shinrikyo cult for its deadly sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway ­ W.F.J [Ed's note: Sinn Fein wants independence for Northern Ireland from the domination and exploitation of the British government, the Prime Minister of which is a Bilderberger­Tony Blair.]

Also see this article on Bill Clinton, Peter King, Jack Quinn, the AFL­CIO, the IRA, and the Khartoum cruise missile attack.

By all means, for irrefutable documentation of US military involvement in terrorism, visit School of the Americas Watch. An excerpt, from a September 20, 1996 article: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/shadow/s03c.htm

2/10

11/10/2016

TRUE DEMOCRACY SUMMER 2001

US Defense Department says teaching manuals violated US policy

On September 20, the U.S. Defense Department admitted that manuals used to train soldiers at the US Army School of the Americas at Fort Benning, Georgia, included practices that were outlawed in the 1980s. According to the Pentagon, the manuals suggested that informants could be controlled with fear, beatings, truth serum, and death threats.

One manual, entitled "Handling of Sources" stated that "The counterintelligence agent must offer presents and compensation for information leading to the arrest, capture or death of guerrillas." Another manual, entitled "Terrorism and the Urban Guerrilla" suggested using extortion in interrogations and that counterintelligence agents' duties should include specifying "targets for neutralizing." [...]

November 19, 1997:

Maximum Sentences for Three SOA Protesters

Columbus, GA, Nov. 19 ­ Three members of a funeral procession that marched onto Fort Benning, home of the notorious School of the Americas, were sentenced today to six months in prison or "unlawful reentry," a misdemeanor. They appeared before US Magistrate William L. Slaughter in US District Court in Columbus, Georgia, this morning. The three were among 601 arrested on Sunday, November 16 for participating in the commemoration of the November 16, 1989, killing of six Jesuit priests, their housekeeper, and her daughter, in El Salvador. Nineteen of the 26 perpetrators of the massacre were graduates of the School of the Americas. The protesters were attempting to deliver hundreds of thousand of signatures calling for the closure of the SOA. For more than 50 years, the SOA, located on the US Army base just outside of Columbus, Georgia, has been training Latin American soldiers. Critics maintain that the SOA trains these soldiers in the arts of torture, assassination, and subversion.

Numerous SOA graduates have been implicated in assassinations and massacres in their home countries.

The three sentenced today ­ Carol Richardson, Director of SOA Watch in Washington, DC; Anne Herman, a grandmother and advocate for the poor in Binghamton, NY; and Richard Streb, a World War II combat veteran and retired professor of history and education from Roanoke, VA ­ were also sentenced to pay fines of $3,000 each.

The three appeared in court today with 25 others who were arrested on the same charge. The other 25 chose to appear before a federal judge at a later date. from The New American, October 30, 1995: See first edition of True Democracy for the Demand which is on the Demand page which will close the school which has now been renamed Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, the page which causes decent people to boycott the United States.

Global Gorby

By: William F. Jasper

Much of the world sat glued before their television screens, eyes and ears transfixed by the drama unfolding in a Los Angeles http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/shadow/s03c.htm

3/10

11/10/2016

TRUE DEMOCRACY SUMMER 2001

courtroom. The closing arguments by Johnnie Cochran and Chris Darden in the O.J. Simpson trial held millions in thrall.

Meanwhile, up the coast in San Francisco, an event of another sort (and of arguably much greater consequence) was getting under way with considerably less attention: "The State of the World Forum," a planetary confabulation sponsored by the Gorbachev Foundation. Held atop the city's famed Nob Hill at the luxurious Fairmont Hotel, the forum brought together a glittering constellation of global notables representing the epitome of worldly power, prestige, fame, wealth, and influence: presidents, princes, potentates, philanthropists, poets, philosophers, and poohbahs.

Who's Who

The weighty seriousness and ambitious reach of the conference indicated by the title of the event ­­ "Toward a New Civilization: Launching a Global Initiative" ­­ were underscored by the list of attendees, a veritable Who's Who of Wall Street, the Trilateral Commission, the World Economic Forum, the Aspen Institute, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Club of Rome, the Bilderbergers, the Politburo, the Commission on Global Governance, the World Future Society, and other Insider bastions of power.

Among the 400­plus eminent personages from 50 countries who flocked to the five­day affair (September 27th­October 1st) were former Secretaries of State James Baker and George Shultz (both co­chairs of the forum), former President George Bush, former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, President Askar Akaev of Kyrgystan, former President Oscar Arias of Costa Rica, Prime Minister Tansu Ciller of Turkey, Czech Republic President Vaclav Havel, former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, and South African Vice President Thabo Mbeki.

Additional participants included: Worldwatch President Lester Brown; New Age gurus Fritjof Capra, Jeremy Rifkin, Willis Harman, Deepak Chopra, Robert Muller, and Matthew Fox; Marxist poetess Rigoberta Menchu; Earth Council president and billionaire eco­warrior Maurice Strong; Microsoft wizard Bill Gates; media mogul Rupert Murdoch; futurists Alvin Toffler and John Naisbitt; Senator George Mitchell; Archer Daniels Midland CEO Dwayne Andreas; computer tycoon David Packard; Esalen founder Michael Murphy; motivation superstar Tony Robbins; Men's Wearhouse CEO George Zimmer; chimpanzee expert Jane Goodall ­­ not to mention Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carl Sagan, John Denver, Shirley MacLaine, Dennis Weaver, Ted Turner, Jane Fonda, Theodore Hesburgh,Timothy Wirth, Max Kampleman, Milton Friedman, Randall Forsberg, Saul Mendlovitz, and Alan Cranston.

Overseeing the entirety of this summit of the anointed was, of course, Mikhail Gorbachev himself. The purpose of the convocation, he proclaimed, was to "launch a multi­year process, culminating in the year 2000, to articulate the fundamental [world] priorities, values, and actions necessary to constructively shape our common future." And who better to kick off an ostentatious extravaganza of that sort than global media titan and former "Humanist of the Year" Ted Turner. Identifying himself as a "great student of history" and a longtime friend of Gorbachev, Turner praised the "ex­Communist"and former dictator for ending the Cold War, which he acclaimed as "the greatest accomplishment in the history of humanity." "Now, with the Cold War behind us," said Ted, "this forum's job is to help chart the way for humanity."

Global Brain Trust

Gorbachev let it be known that he was not one to shirk from that solemn task. Wasting no time, he opened his remarks with this magnanimous proposal: "From the outset I would like to suggest that we consider the establishment of a global Brain Trust to focus on the present and future of our civilization." This is important, he said, "because the main reason why we are lagging behind events, why we are mostly improvising and vacillating in the face of new developments, is that we are lagging behind in the thinking and rethinking of this new world. Of course, this idea of a Brain Trust can only succeed if endorsed and actively pursued by people who are widely respected as world leaders and global citizens." Respected world leaders and global citizens like ­­ well, like those assembled at that very same august colloquium on Nob Hill: selfless billionaires, statesmen, academic double­domes, Nobel laureates, and spiritual mahatmas in the service of humanity and planetary survival. This is a theme Gorbachev has been playing in concert with similar motifs in which he has called for "non­ governmental commissions of 'wise men'" and "Councils of Elders" to solve the world's intractable problems.

No one bothered to ask how he would reconcile the obvious contradictions inherent in his "Brain Trust" proposal and the forum's other throbbing themes of "democratization," "pluralism," and "egalitarianism." During the course of the marathon palaver, Gorbachev and other conference participants regularly attacked present political, economic, and social structures as "elitist," "anti­democratic," and "exclusionary," but were conspicuously vague on how their proposed "Brain Trust" would surmount those problems. Obvious questions went begging: Who would appoint this group? What would be its powers? How would it be funded? What would be the selection criteria? To whom would it be accountable? How would the "diversity" of the group be guaranteed? http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/shadow/s03c.htm

4/10

11/10/2016

TRUE DEMOCRACY SUMMER 2001

The very term "Brain Trust" reeks of elitism, social engineering, and manipulation by a cabal of experts of supposed cerebral superiority. It is an epithet of opprobrium to all lovers of liberty who are aware of the monstrous abuses initiated by the socialist planners of FDR's New Deal "Brain Trust": Raymond Moley, Rexford Guy Tugwell, Lindsey Rogers, James W. Angell, Adolf Berle, Hugh Johnson, Charles Taussig, George Peek, and others. A global "Brain Trust" by the intellectual and spiritual heirs of these statists would mean a prescription for global tyranny.

But drastic measures are needed, says Gorby. The traditional political structures "no longer respond to the needs of an interdependent world. The political culture that we inherited from the past stands in the way of efforts to unite mankind's resources in the face of global challenges."

Mere transformation of political structures, however, is far from adequate. "We are in dire need of redefining the parameters of our society's economic, social, political, and spiritual development," the Soviet seer told his worshipful votaries. "Indeed, we have to reinvent the paradigm of our existence, to build a new civilization." It was a rehearkening to other familiar themes Gorbachev has sung: "developing a global consciousness," "embracing the task of spiritual renewal," launching "the next phase of human development." An awesome undertaking, to be sure. Fortunately for us, he is graciously willing to enlighten and minister to our darkened souls as well as our sick body politic. How does he propose to do this? Comrade Gorbachev proposes to "set up a kind of United Nations Council of Elders."

It was in this "Elder" capacity that Gorbachev offered the next part of his lecture. "Civilization will shift and new values and new ways of life will be needed to find real solutions to the problems of our environment, a way out of the ecological crisis," the sage of Moscow told his San Francisco gathering. Then came the punch line: "Gradually we will have to achieve a change of emphasis in the archetypal dilemma: to have or to be; to change the nature of consumption." "Perhaps it is a little risky in this country to speak about that," he beamed to a titter of audience chuckles. "We have to change the nature of consumption. And I have much to say about that here."

Compassion Con

He certainly did have much to say on the topic, as did many of the other participants during the course of the forum. What was most amazing was that no one gagged or guffawed at the brazen effrontery and hypocrisy of the sainted one's sermonizing on conspicuous consumption while his rapt audience feasted on a sumptuous array of epicurean comestibles fit for royalty: smoked trout salad, filet of beef in shashlik marinade, and a dessert of panna cotta with autumn fruit. This gourmet creation was the work of celebrity chef Joyce Goldstein, and her tantalizing production was but the first of many offerings by famed masters of gourmand haute cuisine such as Wolfgang Puck, Julian Serrano, Joachim Splichal, and David Ribbons.

But the richness of the contradiction was no doubt lost on the pious frauds who paid $5,000 to attend this prestigious soiree.

They have grown inured to their own fakery; from palatial palavers in Rio, to Cairo, Paris, Copenhagen, Geneva, etc. ­­ they have become accustomed to the lavish amenities in which they luxuriate, while feigning selfless pathos for the world's poor and excoriating "hedonistic consumption" by the "middle classes" of Western industrialized societies.

"World Citizen" Ted Turner represents the acme of this compassion con. According to some analysts, the recently announced sale of his Turner Broadcasting System to Time Warner could net him $2.6 billion, a tidy little sum to add to his already bulging billions. After the forum, he and wife Jane could fly off in their private jet, perhaps to their 40,000­acre bison barony in Montana, or to one of their many other humble domiciles to plan still more crusades to save the planet from the destructive consumption of the world's troublesome riffraff.

Getting to the crux of the matter, Gorbachev pontificated: "We have to, I believe, gear consumption more to people's cultural and spiritual needs. Also, through culture and education and within the framework of laws we shall have to address the problem of controlling the world's population." And control, of course, as always, is the key word and concept here. Control.

Power.

Sound like familiar drumbeats for global government? Oh no, says Gorby: "We should not hope that the solution can come from some global center, a kind of world government. What we need is common ground rules accepted by the world community and observed by everyone and for that we need the international mechanisms and the international law that is required." Meaning simply that the "visionary" Russian is glibly proficient in the Aesopian word games employed by the globalists to put off troublesome "isolationists" who rightfully suspect this subversive flummery.

How else to square Gorbachev's denial with his "Churchill" speech of May 6, 1992 in Fulton, Missouri, wherein he explicitly called for "global government" under the United Nations? Or to square it with the obvious intent of global governmental power implicit in his repeated calls for "international mechanisms," "international law," and "global controls"?

Call for Global Government http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/shadow/s03c.htm

5/10

11/10/2016

TRUE DEMOCRACY SUMMER 2001

The New York Times reported on September 17, 1987 that Mikhail Gorbachev had "called for giving the United Nations expanded authority to regulate military conflicts, economic relations, environmental protection and ... also called for enhancing the power of the afflicted International Court of Justice to decide international disputes." These appeals for further empowering the UN were amplified in the Global Security Programme report published last year by the Global Security Project of his Gorbachev Foundation.

Chairman of the board of advisers of the Gorbachev Foundation is past Senator Alan Cranston, a past national president of the United World Federalists. In 1949 Cranston pushed through the California legislature a resolution memorializing Congress to call a national convention to amend the U.S. Constitution to "expedite and insure the participation of the United States in a federal world government." However, in a 1976 interview he advised fellow one­ worlders against mentioning world government since "the more talk about world government the less chance of achieving it, because it frightens people who would accept the concept of world law." Gorbachev, obviously, has heeded the advice of this "elder statesman."

Some of the globalists slip up, however. Recent statements by James Garrison, co­founder and president of the Gorbachev Foundation/USA, for instance, must have caused Mr. Cranston to wince. "Over the next 20 to 30 years, we are going to end up with world government," Garrison said in an interview in the May 31­June 6, 1995 issue of SF Weekly, a liberal­left San Francisco newspaper. "It's inevitable." Garrison continued: "What's happening right now as you break down the Cold War, what is emerging now is ethnic identities. You are going to see more Yugoslavias, more Somalias, more Rwandas, more [Timothy] McVeighs and more nerve­gas attacks. But in and through this turbulence is the recognition that we have to empower the United Nations and that we have to govern and regulate human interaction...." (Emphasis added.)

But Gorbachev's dissembling over world government/world law should not surprise. Like his treacherous use of "democracy," "pluralism," "diversity," "interdependence," "perestroika," "glasnost," and other globalist shibboleths, it is in full comportment with the Communist program of dialectical deception. Consider his conveniently flexible position on "Communism." One speaker after another at the San Francisco forum praised the venerable aparatchik (and former General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union) for putting an end to Soviet Communism. Gorby himself denounced the evils of "totalitarian ideology."

"Convinced Communist"

But this is the same Gorbachev who, a few short years ago (November 1987) proclaimed: "In October 1917, we parted with the Old World, rejecting it once and for all. We are moving toward a new world, the world of Communism. We shall never turn off that road." (Emphasis added.) "Perestroika," he said then, " is a continuation of the October Revolution."

In 1989, Gorbachev declared: "I am a Communist, a convinced Communist. For some that may be a fantasy. But for me it is my main goal." The following year, even as he was being hailed as the "man who ended Communism," he reiterated this conviction, stating, "I am now, just as I've always been, a convinced Communist."

In his book Perestroika, he plainly admitted: "We are not going to change Soviet power, of course, or abandon its fundamental principles, but we acknowledge the need for changes that will strengthen socialism." In the same revered text he explained that "according to Lenin, socialism and democracy are indivisible," and the "essence of perestroika lies in the fact that it unites socialism with democracy and revives the Leninist concept of socialist construction both in theory and in practice." (Emphasis added.) Thus, when he declares for "democracy," he means "democracy" within the Leninist conception and definition of the term, something quite the opposite of that which most Americans assume he is talking about.

But this dialectical legerdemain does not concern George Shultz, who introduced the royal eminence with an embarrassing gush of superlatives ("brilliant," "bold," "daring," "imaginative," "astonishing energy and intellectual grasp," "an intellect of the highest order") and anecdotes of their long "friendship." Shultz, a member and former director of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Gorbachev go back a long way together. In 1985 the duo signed the Soviet­American Education Exchange Agreement negotiated by the one­world subversives at the Carnegie Corporation. Shultz spoke with fond remembrance to the forum guests of the "historic" 1986 Reykjavik Summit at which he and President Reagan, together with Gorbachev and Eduard Shevardnadze, laid the groundwork for the INF Treaty and other disarmament debacles.

For the opening "Plenary Session" of the forum, Gorbachev shared co­chair honors with Thabo Mbeki. Mbeki, the longtime Marxist theoretician and globe­trotting ambassador of the terrorist African National Congress, and a top member of the South African Communist Party (SACP), was an appropriate choice. The ANC chief said he was pleased to attend on behalf of the poor and suffering people of Africa, who might otherwise not be represented in a "new world order" where "the world's agenda is addressed only by the powerful."

[Ed's note: The African National Congress of which Nelson Mandela was the leader is not terrorist. It was the apartheid regime in South Africa who were the terrorists imprisoning not only Nelson Mandela for life ultimately as well as others until the http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/shadow/s03c.htm

6/10

11/10/2016

TRUE DEMOCRACY SUMMER 2001

divestment (another term for boycott) in companies which did business with apartheid South Africa successfully ended the apartheid in that country because Nelson Mandela was finally freed from prison at Robin's Island. Furthermore, until just this year, the southern hemisphere was not aware of the Trilateral Commission's existence as it was a North versus the southern hemisphere conception. Whether Mr. Mbeke knew of these people's real intentions is somewhat doubtful therefore.]

Mbeki, a frequent guest at the Council on Foreign Relations and other lairs of American and European ruling elites, understands power. On July 5, 1993 Mbeki attended a dinner hosted by David Rockefeller for corporate CEOs to raise funds for the ANC's election drive. Mbeki praised Rockefeller as a longtime friend who "has backed the ANC financially for more than a decade." As Nelson Mandela's heir apparent, Mbeki has been given a "moderate" image by the ANC­friendly Insider media.

Steps to "World Order"

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, noted that there was "something profoundly symbolic and hopeful" about the fact that the opening session was co­chaired by Gorbachev and Mbeki. Which in itself says a mouthful about the "worldview" of Zbig and his like­minded fellow conferees. Burnishing his bogus anti­Communist credentials, Brzezinski denounced the terrible record of "carnage" wrought by "Hitlerism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism," and decried the monstrous deeds of the "coercive utopians."

"Yet five years after the end of the century's greatest ideological struggle and five years before the onset of the next millennium," wailed the architect and first director of the Trilateral Commission, "the end of the ideological centrality in global politics has not ushered in a new world order.... We do not have a new world order. Instead we are facing growing doubts regarding the meaning of our era and regarding the shape of our future."

"We cannot leap into world government in one quick step," Brzezinski told his audience, apparently ignoring Gorbachev's caution. Such a grand goal "requires a process of gradually expanding the range of democratic cooperation as well as the range of personal and national security, a widening, step by step, stone by stone, [of] existing relatively narrow zones of stability in the eventual globalization ­­ genuine globalization ­­ is progressive regionalization, because thereby we move toward larger, more stable, more cooperative units."

This "regionalization" is in keeping with the original Trilateral plan, as outlined in Brzezinski's book, Between Two Ages, which called for a gradual convergence of East and West, ultimately leading toward "the goal of world government." In that same time, David Rockefeller's Polish protegé proclaimed that "National sovereignty is no longer a viable concept" and praised Marxism "in the form of Communism" as a "major advance in man's ability to conceptualize his relationship to his world" and a "further vital and creative stage in the maturing of man's universal vision."

NATO and the European Union must be expanded to include Russia and the former Warsaw Pact countries, he said, and the scope of those arrangements must be "furthered, deepened, and institutionalized." Furthermore, Brzezinski asserted, similar structures must be crafted for the Middle East, the Far East, and Central Asia.

Joining Brzezinski at the rostrum was astronomer and cosmic sage Carl Sagan, who warned (predictably) that humanity faces "an absolutely new, unprecedented series of threats to the global environment that sustains us all." These "crises" include (of course) "depletion of the protective ozone layer and global warming through the increasing greenhouse effect...."

Yawn. Same tired, old, toxic eco­drivel. But wait! ­­ there is an exciting new "crisis": asteroids, which are certain to collide with earth in the not­too­distant future. This threat is "necessarily a problem for the whole species" and one in which we will have to join in collective action (presumably through the UN) to solve.

All of these crises show that we must begin to view the planet from the astronauts' perspective, says Sagan: "There are no national boundaries in that perspective. It is only one integrated, whole planet, all parts of which rise and fall together."

The "New Paradigm"

John Naisbitt, futurist, techno­savant, adviser to corporate titans and world leaders, and member of the board of advisers of the Gorbachev Foundation, was more upbeat. The author of the mega­ blockbusters Megatrends, Megatrends 2000, Megatrends for Women, and Global Paradox prefaced his remarks by stating his commitment to "free markets and free trade."

But like the rest of his colloquium colleagues, he emphasized the need for everyone to adopt a "new vocabulary," "new concepts," and a new "worldview" if we are going to understand the "new paradigm" the world has entered.

This "new paradigm," naturally, requires "new leadership" ­­ leaders who will lead by "moral authority." "My candidate for what http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/shadow/s03c.htm

7/10

11/10/2016

TRUE DEMOCRACY SUMMER 2001

a new leader would be like," said Naisbitt, "is Vaclav Havel." Mr. Havel, the celebrated socialist playwright and president of the Czech Republic, of course, also talks of "free markets" ­­ while installing unreconstructed and unrepentant Communists such as Alexander Dubcek in the top positions of power in his government.

Another of his favorite new leaders, said Naisbitt, is Nelson Mandela. Colin Powell is yet another, and Naisbitt criticized those who ask where Powell stands on the issues or what he would do concerning this matter or that: "The point is not what is Powell going to do; the point is who is he going to be. The new leadership is shifting away from being in charge to moral authority, responsibility, and inspiration." You see, in the "new paradigm," you need only be dazzled by the "moral authority" oozing from the persona created by the elite media image makers. We have apparently entered the age of ontological politics ­­ the politics of "being."

"The New Architecture of Global Security and Paths to Building a Civic Society (The Global Age)" was the title of a presentation by Kassa Kebede, a member of the board of directors of the Gorbachev Foundation and an active participant in the Foundation's Global Security Project. Kebede is a former ambassador to the United Nations and was Foreign Secretary during the 1980s for the murderous and genocidal Communist regime of Haile Mengistu in Ethiopia. "The globalization of the challenges confronting us will certainly affect the traditional concept of sovereignty," Kebede told the attendees. Indeed.

Echoing the Kennedy Administration's treasonous 1961 Freedom From War proposal to transfer U.S. armaments to the UN, Kebede's disarmament plan calls for "storage of the warheads and of the delivery systems in separate places under international control."

The Ethiopian commissar also commended the proposition put forward in Our Global Neighborhood: The Report of the Commission on Global Governance* to create "a standing force of 10,000 soldiers under the authority of the Security Council."

This in spite of the fact that the UN's present "peacekeeping" operations, as Kebede himself admits, are already vastly "overextended," with "more than 70,000 personnel, and costs of over $3.5 billion."

NOTE: See the April 3, 1995 issue of The New American, page 5

Kebede parroted the Global Security Programme and Zbigniew Brzezinski in calling for establishing regional "security" (i.e. war­making) organizations similar to NATO "in the Middle East, South Asia and North East Asia."

Joining the Mikhail/Zbigniew Doublespeak Chorus, Kebede chirped: "The commonality of goals, and shared values of global ethics, produce justification for world governance. This concept is in no way an alteration of national sovereignty, and does not lead to world government."

Although the state of the world's political, economic, and social ills came in for thorough treatment at the forum, it was in the area of global spiritual enlightenment that the gathering blossomed into full flower. Leading the cosmic charge were a host of the reigning Brahmins of New Age bliss, including Willis Harman, Barbara Marx Hubbard, Richard Baker, Matthew Fox, Shirley MacLaine, Deepak Chopra, Fritjof Capra, and Rupert Sheldrake.

[Ed's note: In my humble opinion, Deepak Chopra is a humanitarian.]

Willis Harman, New Age philosopher, president of the Institute of Noetic Sciences, and author of Global Mind Change and The New Metaphysical Foundation of Modern Science, has had a profound effect on our society in the past couple of decades. In "Our Hopeful Future: Creating a Sustainable Society," one of his new essays distributed at the forum, Harman reported, "Around the world one detects murmurings that industrialized and 'developing' countries alike have a need for a new social order ­­ that, in fact, the situation calls for a worldwide systemic change." Really? Have you heard such "murmurings" in your neighborhood? Not likely ­ ­ unless your neighborhood is home to some of Harman's murmurous disciples.

Evolutionary Process

These murmurers, who comprise "an expanding fraction of the populace," perceive "a shifting underlying picture of reality."

They see "the connectedness of everything to everything" and place "emphasis on intuition and the assumption of inner divinity." These adepts of the "new spirituality" share a "commitment to global change." Their "New Order," says Harman, is characterized by "an emphasis not on goals but on process ... the process is an evolutionary one, and the goals are emergent." The message is: Don't question where I am taking you, just start moving. And trust me; I'm doing what's good for you.

"Interconnectedness" is the overarching theme also preached by biologist Rupert Sheldrake, a Theosophist who posits that a "morphogenic field" ­­ an invisible matrix or organizing field that connects all life and thought on earth ­­ holds the keys to our existence and to the "Ageless Wisdom."

Fritjof Capra, physicist and systems theorist, New Age swami, and author of the international best­sellers Uncommon http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/shadow/s03c.htm

8/10

11/10/2016

TRUE DEMOCRACY SUMMER 2001

Wisdom, The Turning Point, and The Tao of Physics, provided a similar message. "The Elmwood Institute, which Capra founded in Berkeley, California, sees that none of the major problems of our time can be understood in isolation," write New Age political activists Corinne McLaughlin and Gordon Davidson in Spiritual Politics: Changing the World From the Inside Out. "A systems approach is needed, as all our problems are interconnected and interdependent, facets of one single crisis ­­ essentially a crisis of perception. This crisis is part of a cultural shift from a mechanistic worldview to a holistic and ecological view, from a value system based on domination to partnership, from quantity to quality, from expansion to conservation, from efficiency to sustainability."

A Capra essay, "The Turning of the Tide," was included in the Fall 1993 issue of ReVision: A Journal of Consciousness and Transformation, which was part of the free literature made available to the forum participants. In it Capra writes:

"The view of man as dominating nature and woman, and the belief in the superior role of the rational mind, have been supported and encouraged by the Judaeo­Christian tradition, which adheres to the image of a male god, personification of supreme reason and source of ultimate power, who rules the world from above by imposing his divine law on it. The laws of nature searched for by the scientists were seen as reflections of this divine law, originating in the mind of God."

This traditional Judaeo­Christian­influenced thinking, says Capra, "has led to attitudes that are profoundly antiecological. In truth, the understanding of ecosystems is hindered by the very nature of the rational mind. Rational thinking is linear, whereas ecological awareness arises from an intuition of nonlinear systems." Capra celebrates Eastern mysticism as a superior spiritual path, while applauding the "inevitable decline of patriarchy," the demise of "fixed ideas and rigid patterns of behavior," and the rise of the feminist and ecological movements.

Barbara Marx Hubbard, author of The Book of Co­Creation, claims in her curricula vitae to be "establishing Evolutionary Circles throughout the world to support small groups in their emergence as universal humans, founders of a global civilization." Hubbard was an organizer of the 1988 Soviet­American Citizens' Summit in Alexandria, Virginia, coordinated with the Soviet Peace Committee, a creature of the Soviet Central Committee's International Department established by Stalin to carry out penetration and subversion of foreign countries. Hubbard is also a former director of the Federal Union, founded by Fabian Socialist Rhodes Scholar Clarence Streit.

As a psychologist with Task Force Delta, an army think tank of futurists, strategists, and psychology and parapsychology researchers, Hubbard is credited with the idea of "bombarding" the Soviets with "psychic love," and formation of the First Earth Battalion (FEB). The credo of the FEB "guerilla gurus" states: "I take personal responsibility for generating evolutionary conspiracies as a part of my work. I will select and create conspiratorial mechanisms ... that will create and perform evolutionary breakthrough actions on behalf of people and planet. One people, one planet."

But according to these cognoscenti, there are too many people on this "one planet." Willis Harman's essay grapples with the "dilemma.": "In the economy­dominated world, as the outspoken anthropologist Margaret Mead once put it bluntly, 'The unadorned truth is that we do not need now, and will not need later, much of the marginal labor ­­ the very young, the very old, the very uneducated, and the very stupid.'" "This dilemma is perhaps the most basic one we face," said Harman. Society can't afford "from an environmental standpoint, or from the standpoint of tearing apart of the social fabric ­­ the economic growth that would be necessary to provide jobs for all in the conventional sense, and the inequities which have come to accompany that growth. This dilemma, more than any other aspect of our current situation, indicates how fundamental a system change is now required."

In the closing plenary session of the forum, philosopher/author Sam Keen summarized the consensus of the learned ones.

Among the conference participants, said Keen, "there was very strong agreement that religious institutions have to take primary responsibility for the population explosion. We must speak far more clearly about sexuality, about contraception, about abortion, about the values that control the population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the [world's] population by 90 percent and there aren't enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage."

How do we "cut" the planet's population by 90 percent? Even genocidal mass murderers Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao combined did not come close to attaining such a "lofty" goal. As always, the devil is in the details. Forum participant Barbara Marx Hubbard may already have provided some of the devilish answer. In The Book of Co­Creation she writes: "Out of the full spectrum of human personality, one­fourth is electing to transcend.... One­fourth is destructive [and] they are defective seeds.

In the past they were permitted to die a 'natural death.'... Now as we approach the quantum shift from the creature­human to the co­creative human ­­ the human who is an inheritor of god­like powers ­­ the destructive one­fourth must be eliminated from the social body.... Fortunately, you are not responsible for this act. We are. We are in charge of God's selection process for planet Earth. He selects, we destroy. We are the riders of the pale horse, Death."

Lord help us all if this de facto "Brain Trust" of diabolical misfits, murderers, megalomaniacs, terrorists, and tyrants succeed in establishing their "new world order," their "new global civilization."

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/shadow/s03c.htm

9/10

11/10/2016

TRUE DEMOCRACY SUMMER 2001

PREVIOUS ARTICLE NEXT ARTICLE Zbigniew Brzezinski and The Trilateral Commission

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/shadow/s03c.htm

10/10