Bilderberg is where the top conspirators broadly effect implementation of their architecture. It is ground zero for practical conspirator coordination. The conspirator systematicians exhibit all the ills detailed above. In particular, the goal they accept is perpetuation of the existing power structure. This goal is inimical to humanity, and particularly noxious to its brightest and most inventive members. In one of those examples of happenstance that smack of fate, the chief conspirator architect - Henry Kissinger - has the initials HAK.

Using data assembled by Tony Gosling, I have done a simple analysis of attendance at Bilderberg '99 (Hotel Caesar Park Penha Longa, Sintra, Portugal), '98 (Turnberry, Ayrshire, Scotland), '97 (Pine Isle resort, Lake Lanier, near Atlanta, Georgia, USA), '96 (CIBC Leadership Centre, Toronto, Canada), and '95 (Zurich, Switzerland). The nucleus of power obviously is the set of people who attended all of them - these are the people Bilderberg is built around. I separately list people who attended four of the five meetings, and end with a list of curious attendees who aren't regulars. David Rockefeller is notable in his habitual attendance not only of Bilderberg, but of CFR and TLC gatherings, making it obvious that he is indeed the Chairman of the Board of the World. Hidden behind the scenes is the House of Rothschild, which nonetheless does make personal Bilderberg appearances.

My guess is that Sir Evelyn de Rothschild (Chairman, N M Rothschild & Sons - nmrothschild.co.uk) and perhaps some other Rothschilds set the covert agenda for each Bilderberg meeting, and have final say on who will attend in a given year, and David Rockefeller mediates their agenda, though Henry Kissinger may also act as a direct mediator. Carrington likely has much direct involvement in auditing prospective invitees. Chairman Carrington, of course, is the one who actually sends the invitations. The Advisory Group, Steering Committee, and Honorary Secretaries-General, nominally recommend attendees, but in practice this is not quite how things work.

Conrad Black brags (or confesses, depending on one's point of view) that "After 1986, I became the co-leader of the Canadian group and effectively chose most of the Canadian participants." Presumably, Agnelli "effectively" chooses the Italian participants, Balsemao the Portuguese, Barnevik the Swedish, Davignon the Belgian, Hoegh the Norwegian, Halberstadt the Dutch, Olechowski the Polish, de Pury the Swiss, Schrempp the German, Seidenfaden the Danish, Sutherland the Irish, Vranitzky the Austrian, Collomb the French, David the Greek, Carvajal Urquijo the Spanish, and Wolfensohn, all those not otherwise included. Selection of US and UK participants is clearly more complicated.

One might assume that those officially designated as "representatives" ("REP" in the below list) would be the ones that choose participants from their respective nations, but this is clearly not the case, considering that Black is not a "representative." Status as a representative is likely indicative of a person tending to organizational and reporting responsibilities specific to his nation. The Steering Committee ("STEERING") consists of four people responsible for more general administrative and organizational responsibilities. The role of the Advisory Committee ("ADVISORY") is unclear to me, but appears to be an ultra-select aristocratic old boy's club.

Tony Gosling has assembled a treasure trove of details on Bilderberg's history and function. This is vital reading.

95-99:

Allaire, Paul A - USA - Chairman, Xerox Corporation

Balsemao, Francisco Pinto - P - REP: PORTUGAL -

 Professor of Communication Science, New University, Lisbon; Chairman, IMPRESA, S.G.P.S.; Former Prime Minister.

Barnevik, Percy - S - REP: SWEDEN - Chairman, ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd

Black, Conrad M. - CDN - Chairman, The Telegraph plc.

Carrington, Peter - GB - STEERING: CHAIRMAN -

 Former Chairman of the Board, Christie's International plc; Former Secretary General, NATO Honorary Secretary General for Europe and Canada

Hoegh, Westye - N - REP: NORWAY -

 Chairman of the Board, Leif Hoegh and Co. A.S.A.; Former President, Norwegian Shipowners Association

Holbrooke, Richard C. - USA -

 Former Assistant Secretary for European Affairs; Vice Chairman, CS First Boston

Jordan, Jr., Vernon E. - USA - REP: USA -

 Senior Partner, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP (Attorneys-at-Law)

Kissinger, Henry A. - USA - REP: USA - Former Secretary of State; Chairman, Kissinger Associates; Inc.

Netherlands, Her Majesty the Queen of the - NL

Olechowski, Andrzej - PL - Chairman, Central Europe Trust, Poland

Pury, David de - CH - REP: SWITZERLAND - Chairman, de Pury Pictet Turrettini and Co. Ltd.

Rockefeller, David - USA - ADVISORY -

 Chairman, Chase Manhattan Bank International Advisory Committee

Schrempp, Jurgen E. - D - Chairman of the Board of Management, Daimler-Benz AG.

Seidenfaden, Toger - DK - Editor in Chief, Politiken A/S

Taylor, J. Martin - GB - Group Chief Executive, Barclays plc.

Vranitzky, Franz - A - Former Federal Chancellor

Wolfensohn, James D. - INT - REP: USA/INT -

 President, the World Bank; President, James D. Wolfensohn, Inc.

Yost, Casimir A. - USA - REP: USA -

 Director, Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, Washington; Executive Director, The Asia Foundation's Center for Asian-Pacific Affairs

Collomb, Bertrand - F - Chairman and CEO, Lafarge

David, George A. - GR - Chairman of the Board, Hellenic Bottling Company S.A.

Wolff von Amerongen, Otto - D - ADVISORY - Chairman and CEO of Otto Wolff GmbH

Agnelli, Giovanni - I - ADVISORY - Honorary Chairman, Fiat S.p.A.

Davignon, Etienne - B - REP: BELGIUM -

 Executive Chairman, Societe Generale de Belgique; Former Vice Chairman of the Commission of the European Communities

Levy-Lang, Andre - F - Chairman of the Board of Management, Banque Paribas.

Sutherland, Peter D. - IRL - REP: IRELAND -

 Chairman and Managing Director, Goldman Sachs International; Former Director General, GATT and WTO.

Wolfowitz, Paul - USA -

 Dean, Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
 

notables:

Spain, Her Majesty the Queen of - 96 - ES

Sweden, His Majesty the King of - 98 - S

Lipponen, Paavo - 98 - FIN - Prime Minister

Ahtisaari, Martti - 95,96 - FI - President of the Republic of Finland

Oddsson, David - 97 - ICE - Prime Minister.

Chretien, Jean - 96 - CDN - Prime Minister

Harris, Michael - 96 - CDN - Premier of Ontario

Klein, Ralph - 95 - Premier of Alberta

Brittan, Leon - 98 - INT - Vice President of the European Commission

Almunia Amann, Joaquin - 98 - E - Secretary General, Socialist Party

 

Rothschild, Evelyn de - 98 - GB - Chairman, N M Rothschild and Sons

Rothschild, Emma - 95 - Dir Ctr for History and Economics Cambridge

Soros, George - 96 - USA - President, Soros Fund Management

Lamont, Norman - 95 - MP, Fmr Chan Excq, Director of N.M. Rothschild

Crockett, Andrew - 98 - INT - General Manager, Bank for International Settlements

Victor, Alice - 96 - USA - RRR - Executive Assistant, Rockefeller Financial Services, Inc.

McDonough, William J. - 97,98 - USA - President, Federal Reserve Bank of New York

Feldstein, Martin S. - 96,98 - USA - President and CEO, National Bureau of Economic Research Inc.

Kopper, Hilmar - 95,98 - D - REP: GERMANY - Chairman of the Supervisory Board, Deutsche Bank A.G.

Roll, Lord of Ipsden - none - GB - ADVISORY - President, S. G. Warburg Group plc.

 

Deutch, John M. - 98 - USA -

 Institute Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Chemistry. Former Director General, Central Intelligence Agency; Former Deputy Secretary of Defence

Soderberg, Nancy - 95 - Dep Asst to President for NSA

Berger, Samuel R. - 97 - USA - Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.

Stephanopoulos, George - 96,97 - USA -

 Visiting Professor, Columbia University, Former Senior Advisor to the President for Policy and Strategy.

Beugel, Ernst H van der - 97,98 - NL - ADVISORY -

 Emeritus Professor of International Relations, Leiden University; Former Honorary Secretary General of Bilderberg Meetings for Europe and Canada

Griffin, Anthony G.S. - 96 - CDN - ADVISORY - Honorary Chairman and Director, Guardian Group

Chubais, Anatoli B. - 98 - RUS - Former First Vice Prime Minister; Chairman RAO EES

Buckley, Jr., William F. - 96 - USA - Editor-at-Large, National Review

Ball, George W. - none - USA - ADVISORY - Former Under-Secretary of State.

Bundy, William P. - none - USA - ADVISORY - Former Editor, Foreign Affairs.

Elliott, Theodore L., Jr. - none - USA - STEERING: SECRETARY GENERAL FOR USA -

 Dean Emeritus, The Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy; Former US Ambassador.

Jankowitsch, Peter - none - A - REP: AUSTRIA - Member of Parliament, Former Foreign Minister.

Lacharr?re, Marc Lardreit de - none - F - REP: FRANCE - Chairman, Fimalac.

Carras, Costa - 96,97 - GB - REP: GREECE - Director of Companies

Monti, Mario - 96 - INT - REP: ITALY -

 Commissioner, European Communities, Rector and Professor of Economics, Bocconi University, Milan.

Ruggiero, Renato - 96 - INT - REP: ITALY -

 Director General, World Trade Organization; Former Minister of Trade

Knight, Andrew - 95,96 - GB - REP: UNITED KINGDOM -

 Executive Chairman, News International plc.

Mathias, Charles McC. - none - USA - REP: USA -

 Partner, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue; Former US Senator (Republican, Maryland).

Whitehead, Rozanne C. - none - USA - REP: USA - Former Deputy Secretary of State.

Williams, Lynn R. - none - USA - REP: USA - International President, United Steel- Workers of America.

International power brokers meet to discuss global future
World's most secret society to meet in Sintra

The world's most secret society is to meet in Portugal in June. Bilderberg, one of the most secretive organisation in the world, comprising presidents, royal families, ministers, top industrialists and financial leaders are set to meet in Sintra, Portugal at the beginning of June. Francisco Pinto Balsam?o, former Portuguese PM, media baron and frequent attendee of the meetings is listed as the member for Portugal. The security for the Bilderberg meetings, which are held at irregular intervals and prompted by the state of world affairs, is the responsibility of the host country. According to sources in Washington, Bilderberg will pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to reimburse the Portuguese government for deploying military forces to guard their privacy and for helicopters to seek out intruders. Bilderberg have ordered the resort to be shut down for a full 48 hours before the conference. The Bilderberg delegates, comprising some of the world's most powerful decision makers, will be here to discuss highly classified issues which are not supposed to be disclosed to the public by the press, before or after the meeting.

Initially alerted to this meeting by a New York reader who requested anonymity, The News contacted the Caesar Park Penha Longa resort in Sintra to verify the information that the secret meeting will be held at their resort. The only confirmation we received was that an organization `wishing for the utmost privacy' would be in Sintra and that the hotel was fully and exclusively booked by this organisation from June 2 to June 7.

The agenda for the meeting is said to include a "globilaztion summit", during which nations which cling tenaciously to their sovereign identities will be denounced by its leadership. The principal feature of Bilderberg is that it seeks one global government, (a structure similar to the European Union), while counteracting nationalist sentiment is supposedly its greatest battle. Renewed calls for the United Nations to be able to directly tax all people of the world is said to be another major topic to be tabled for discussion in Sintra. Bilderberg meetings are only held when and where the hosts can provide the highest levels of security for their guests. All Bilderberg participants, their staff members and resort employees will wear photo identification tags. They will have separate colours to identify the wearer as participant, staff member or employee. A computer chip "fingerprint" will assure the identity of the card's wearer.

According to the Washington based investigative newsletter, Spotlight, who claims to have a contact inside Bilderberg, any intruders are to be manhandled, cuffed and jailed and if the intruders resist arrest or attempt to flee, they will be shot. International and national media are said to be welcome only when an oath of silence has been taken, news editors are held responsible if any of their journalists 'inadvertently' report on what takes place.

Bilderberg members are immune to all forms of bureaucracy that face ordinary citizens on a daily basis. No visas are required and a free and safe passage is provided by the government providing the Bilderberg rendezvous. They travel to and from the airport to the resort in armoured vehicles with a police escort. Meetings are held annually but rarely at the same locations for obvious security reasons. The first Bilderberg conference was held at the Bilderberg Hotel in Osterbeek Holland in May 1954, and the organization is said to have been established as a secret and supportive wing of NATO and the Marshall plan which was launched in the 1940s.

International conspiracy

The News having researched various sources on the Bilderberg meetings, discovered that PSD co-founder, Francisco Pinto Balsem?o, allegedly attended at least the previous two Bilderberg meetings held in Scotland (1998) and Georgia in the United States (1997). Balsem?o is said to be the only Portuguese representative on the Bilderberg steering committee. Other prominent figures listed to have attended previous meetings are Ricardo Salgado chief executive officer at Banco Espirito Santo, Henry Kissinger, Tony Blair (who attended the meeting held in 1995) and Giovanni Agnelli who is the owner of the Fiat Motor Corporation.

The News is Portugal's largest circulation English language newspaper. Established for over 20 years, it is the only Portuguese newspaper on the net that covers all the major news about Portugal in the English language.

Bilderburg meeting - wall of silence?

As revealed exclusively in The News last week, the Bilderbergs, reputedly the world's most secret society, are due to meet in Sintra next month. We have received e-mails from all over the world congratulating The News on making this information public. Yet in Portugal, as we closed the paper on Thursday, the press has remained tight lipped about this meeting, in spite of the fact that Portugal's national press agency LUSA decided to distribute The News' report to all the Portuguese media.

A quick search of the internet on the single keyword Bilderberg, will bring up some of the most extraordinary claims regarding the objectives and activities of this powerful group of industrialists, financiers and ex-politicians. It will also reveal many reports of the lengths to which this organisation will go to maintain full secrecy over its meetings. Much of the information could be seen as scurrilous, even far fetched, with claims that these people are part of what is described as the New World Order. An hour or so of research will be enough to find the names of most of the members, details of their past meetings and claims of what has been discussed.

It is not for this newspaper to become part of this speculation, yet it is extraordinary that even in a democracy such as Portugal, the very presence of what can only be described as one of the most prestigious meetings of powerful men and women from around the world, could remain unreported anywhere.
 

The systems approach

By the book

RESCUING PROMETHEUS.
By Thomas Hughes.
Pantheon Books; 416 pages; $28.50

AT AN American diplomat's home soon after Neil Armstrong had set foot on the moon in 1969, this reviewer teased a fellow guest whose firm had helped design the lunar-landing module: ``So, when the crunch came, Armstrong had to override your faulty computer and land the spacecraft manually.'' The guest was Simon Ramo, a guiding spirit behind the Atlas missile programme, the ``R'' in the aerospace firm TRW and, as a pioneer of systems engineering, one of the heroes of this book. ``Do you seriously believe,'' he replied, ``that we could allow a mere astronaut to override our lunar-landing system?''

His implication was that ``the system'' of hardware, software and communications protocols that managed the spacecraft had been programmed to allow for a very common human anxiety: the last-minute conviction that the machine has got it wrong. Had NASA engineers anticipated this and built in enough ``feedback'' to give the astronauts an illusion of control when they panicked? Shades of the computer HAL in Stanley Kubrick's ``2001''. The truth of Mr Ramo's boast is not the issue. The fact is that already 30 years ago there were large technical systems smart enough to do their assigned tasks while taking care of emergencies, errors and expediencies - even unpredictable ``wetware'' (humans) trying to mess things up.

Big engineering systems existed, to be sure, before systems engineering. The pyramids involved meticulous co-ordination. The cathedral builders of medieval Europe melded technology, utility and artistic skill into a form of religious architecture yet to be surpassed. For its day, Brunel's construction of the Great Western Railway was no less challenging than the Manhattan Project which produced the atom bomb nearly a century later.

By the mid-1950s, however, something had changed. The sheer scale of projects demanded a new approach. With its 18,000 academic researchers plus 70,000 workers spread around more than 200 firms, the Atlas project to build America's first intercontinental ballistic missile did more than change the cold war. It produced a new sort of management that spread through the military and industrial worlds to alter forever how the United States earned its keep.

As teams of engineers and scientists polarised around problems rather than technologies, new cross-disciplinary bodies such as Rand, Mitre, and Ramo-Wooldridge (later TRW) emerged in America to apply theories of queuing, games, decisions, information and control as well as statistics, operations research and linear programming in a wholly integrated way. As American industry inched into the systems era, its prowess evolved, from stamping out gadgets by the million to creating smaller numbers of much pricier and more complex things - airliners, fancy weapons, telecoms satellites, chemical plants, air-traffic controls. These, today, are among America's main exports.

In ``Rescuing Prometheus'', an industrial historian, Thomas Hughes, seeks to give the large technological undertakings of the cold-war era their due. His ode to systems engineering includes a detailed look at three large defence projects and one civilian one. The first, the SAGE (Semi-Automatic Ground Environment) project to build a radar-based air-defence system, is the most instructive - in large part because it was a flop.

As an air-raid defence system, SAGE worked well. Unfortunately, by the time it was deployed in 1958, missiles had replaced bombers as the big threat. But SAGE pioneered a new form of collaboration, in which a university (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) worked with the Pentagon during the design and development stage. Like the troublesome Erie Canal in the early 19th century, SAGE was one of technology's big learning experiences.

As chapters of post-war history, the author's three other examples provide a rare insight into industrial planning on a huge scale. His account of the Atlas missile programme is an eye-opener on how efficient the military-industrial complex really was when seriously competent people were in charge. The description of Arpanet, the forerunner of the Internet that the Pentagon's Advanced Research Projects Agency backed so that university researchers could easily communicate amongst themselves, explains a lot of what the web-surfers nowadays take for granted. The one purely civilian system Mr Hughes considers, Boston's central artery and tunnel-road project, makes much the same point as his other case histories, and with more or less equal force: no matter how much computational power is assembled or data collected, there is no substitute for managerial genius.

If this excellent book has a fault, it is the over-defensive tone that Mr Hughes adopts towards critics of the systems approach. When, in the 1960s and 1970s, this was applied to social problems such as poverty, healthcare and crime, the results were usually disappointing. Systems enthusiasts woefully underestimated the complexity of human behaviour and the great quantities of computing power needed to model it in any meaningful way. Misuse in the Vietnam war did not help. A reaction set in and ``the systems approach'' became a term of abuse. Yet, in its proper place - an industrial or military context with clear lines of command - systems engineering remains to this day the most powerful tool yet devised for problem-solving on a giant scale. As such, it needs no defence.

System Dynamics and the Lessons of 35 Years

1. INTRODUCTION

The professional field known as system dynamics has been developing for the last 35 years and now has a world-wide and growing membership. System dynamics combines the theory, methods, and philosophy needed to analyze the behavior of systems in not only management, but also in environmental change, politics, economic behavior, medicine, engineering, and other fields. System dynamics provides a common foundation that can be applied wherever we want to understand and influence how things change through time.

The system dynamics process starts from a problem to be solved-a situation that needs to be better understood, or an undesirable behavior that is to be corrected or avoided. The first step is to tap the wealth of information that people possess in their heads. The mental data base is a rich source of information about the parts of a system, about the information available at different points in a system, and about the policies being followed in decision making. The management and social sciences have in the past unduly restricted themselves to measured data and have neglected the far richer and more informative body of information that exists in the knowledge and experience of those in the active, working world.

System dynamics uses concepts drawn from the field of feedback control to organize available information into computer simulation models. A digital computer as a simulator, acting out the roles of the operating people in the real system, reveals the behavioral implications of the system that has been described in the model. The first articles based on this work appeared in the Harvard Business Review (Forrester, 1958). From over three decades in system dynamics modeling have come useful guides for working toward a better understanding of the world around us.

The continued search for better understanding of social and economic systems represents the next great frontier. Frontiers of the past have included creating the written literatures, exploring geographical limits of earth and space, and penetrating mysteries of physical science. Those are no longer frontiers; they have become a part of everyday activity. By contrast, insights into behavior of social systems have not advanced in step with our understanding of the natural world. To quote B. F. Skinner:

"Twenty-five hundred years ago it might have been said that man understood himself as well as any other part of his world... Today he is the thing he understands least. Physics and biology have come a long way, but there has been no comparable development of anything like a science of human behavior... Aristotle could not have understood a page of modern physics or biology, but Socrates and his friends would have little trouble in following most current discussions of human affairs." (Skinner, 1971, p. 3)

The great challenge for the next several decades will be to advance understanding of social systems in the same way that the past century has advanced understanding of the physical world.

 

 
 
 

2. DESIGNING MANAGERIAL AND SOCIAL SYSTEMS

Everyone speaks of systems: computer systems, air traffic control systems, economic systems, and social systems. But few realize how pervasive are systems, how imbedded in systems we are in everything we do, and how influential are systems in creating most of the puzzling difficulties that confront us.

People deal differently with different kinds of systems. Engineering systems are designed using the most advanced methods of dynamic analysis and computer modeling to anticipate behavior of a system when finally constructed. On the other hand, although political, economic, and managerial systems are far more complex than engineering systems, only intuition and debate have ordinarily been used in building social systems. But, powerful system-design methodologies have evolved over the last 50 years.

In designing an engineering system, say a chemical plant, engineers realize that the dynamic behavior is complicated and that the design can not successfully be based only on rules of thumb and experience. There would be extensive studies of the stability and dynamic behavior of the chemical processes and their control. Computer models would be built to simulate behavior before construction of even a pilot plant. Then, if the plant were of a new type, a small pilot plant would be built to test the processes and their control.

But observe how differently social systems are designed. We change laws, organizational forms, policies, and personnel practices on the basis of impressions and committee meetings, usually without any dynamic analysis adequate to prevent unexpected consequences.

"Designing" social systems or corporations may seem mechanistic or authoritarian. But all governmental laws and regulations, all corporate policies that are established, all computer systems that are installed, and all organization charts that are drawn up constitute partial designs of social systems. Such redesigns are then tested experimentally on the organization as a whole without dynamic modeling of the long-term effects and without first running small-scale pilot experiments. For example, bank deregulation and the wave of corporate mergers in the 1980s constituted major redesigns of our economy with inadequate prior consideration for the results. All systems within which we live have been designed. The shortcomings of those systems result from defective design, just as the shortcomings of a power plant result from inappropriate design.

Consider the contrast between great advances during the last century in understanding technology, and the relative lack of progress in understanding economic and managerial systems. Why such a difference? Why has technology advanced so rapidly while social systems continue to exhibit the same kinds of misbehavior decade after decade? I believe the answer lies in failing to recognize that countries and corporations are indeed systems. There is an unwillingness to accept the idea that families, corporations, and governments belong to the same general class of dynamic structures as do chemical refineries and autopilots for aircraft.

There is a reluctance to accept the idea that physical systems, natural systems, and human systems are fundamentally of the same kind, and that they differ primarily in their degree of complexity. To admit the existence of a social system is to admit that the relationships between its parts have a strong influence over individual human behavior.

The idea of a social system implies sources of behavior beyond that of the individual people within the system. Something about the structure of a system determines what happens beyond just the sum of individual objectives and actions. In other words, the concept of a system implies that people are not entirely free agents but are substantially responsive to their surroundings.

To put the matter even more bluntly, if human systems are indeed systems, it implies that people are at least partly cogs in a social and economic machine, that people play their roles within the totality of the whole system, and that they respond in a significantly predictable way to forces brought to bear on them by other parts of the system. Even though this is contrary to our cherished illusion that people freely make their individual decisions, I suggest that the constraints implied by the existence of systems are true in real life. As an example, we see the dominance of the political system over the individual in the evolution of the Federal budget deficit. Every presidential candidate since 1970 has campaigned with the promise to reduce the federal deficit. But the deficit has on the average doubled every four years. The social forces rather than the president have been controlling the outcome. How to harness those social forces has not been effectively addressed.

 

Uncertainty: the key to the science of the future?

By Ilya Prigogine, Nobel laureate, Director of the International Solvay Institute of Physics and Chemistry in Brussels and the I. Prigogine Center for Studies in Statistical Mechanics and Complex Systems at the University of Texas at Austin; member of The Club of Rome.

In a world where little seems predictable, where every day brings news of further political and economic upheavals, where we are even threatened with radical changes in the global climate, certainty is a rare commodity. Yet in his best selling book, A Brief History of Time ⁽¹⁾, Stephen Hawking argues that we are close to the certainty which will come from understanding the full complexity of the universe. Once the "complete theory" of the universe is discovered, Hawking says the only remaining question would be "why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason...", for then we would know the mind of God.

This quest for total understanding has been the ultimate goal of physics, from Leibniz three centuries ago to contemporary writers such as Steven Weinberg ⁽²⁾.

It is indeed a grandiose project. To quote Leibniz: "In the least of substances, eyes as piercing as those of God could read the whole course of the universe." There would be no distinction between past, present and future; we would share the certainty of God.

We can perhaps take comfort from the fact, recently pointed out by Stephen Toulmin ⁽³⁾, that the religious wars and political instability of the 17th century formed the background for Descartes to formulate his quest for certainty - a certainty that all human beings could share, irrespective of religion. Descartes' programme proved to be immensely successful : it influenced Leibniz's concept of "laws of nature" and found concrete expression in Newton's work which provided the model for physics for over 300 years.

For Einstein, also, science was a way of going beyond the turmoil of everyday existence. He compared scientific activity to the "longing that irresistibly pulls the town-dweller away from his noisy, cramped quarters and toward the silent, high mountains" ⁽⁴⁾. He, too, considered certainty to be the supreme ideal of science.

The problem with this ideal of certainty is that it is associated with a denial of time and of novelty which leads to feelings of alienation. As Weinberg has said, "The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it seems pointless." Indeed, the ideas of certainty forces us to give up the notion of events and eliminates the novelty and creativity without which our own lives would be pointless.

The logical consequence is dualism. In Descartes' system, matter follows deterministic laws and is radically separated from intellectual activity.

Certainty is, however, beginning to be challenged - quite rightly, in my opinion. We are witnessing the start of a timely reappraisal of the fundamental laws of physics. In 1986, the then president of the International Union of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, Sir John Lighthill, was moved to apologize collectively for physicists spreading ideas about determinism, based on their forebears' enthusiasm for the achievements of Newtonian mechanics - ideas which had since 1960 been proved false ⁽⁵⁾. This is a quite unusual confession. Certainty, for three centuries the key symbol of scientific intelligibility, is being put into question.

Lighthill was referring to developments in chaos theory, a topic too complex to explain here. I want only to make a remark based mainly on the recent work of my groups in Austin and Brussels. Chaos changes the formulation of the laws of physics: instead of expressing certainties, they express possibilities. At its beginning "the universe was like a newborn baby who can become a lawyer, an astronaut - but not all at the same time." As W. Thirring has written, "Our formulation of the laws of nature cannot contradict experience ... but they will be far from determining everything. As the universe evolves, the circumstances create new laws." ⁽⁶⁾

Some people may feel that giving up the ideal of certainty marks a defeat for human reason, but I do not agree.

Once we replace the deterministic description with one involving probability, we can introduce the arrow of time into our basic equations and start to describe an evolutionary universe, in agreement with the important place of evolution in describing everything from cosmology to human history.

We can now make predictions, going far beyond classical theory, about complex systems such as the stability of our planetary system and our ecosystem.

Once we include time, we begin to understand the variety of the physical world - both the order of living systems and the disorder existing in the universe. The distinction is basically due to the arrow of time: over time, non-equilibrium processes generate complex structures that cannot be achieved in an equilibrium situation. The result is a whole new physics and a new biology of non-equilibrium processes.

Since evolutionary events related to self-organization play an essential role in both living and non-living sytems, science is no longer deterministic. Nor is it reductionist as new properties of matter appear in non-equilibrium processes that cannot be expressed in terms of individual particles.

Even the direction of time itself becomes linked to global properties of ensembles, whether elementary particles, living cells or human populations. For example, societies evolve not because individuals become older, but because the relations between individuals change.

Far from coming to the end of science, as Hawking suggests, in my opinion we are only just beginning to be able to produce a coherent view of the universe. We come from a past of conflicting certainties - be they related to science, ethics or social systems - to a present of questioning. This will mean finding a type of scientific rationality more appropriate to our times.

The future is uncertain, but this uncertainty is at the heart of human creativity. Time becomes "construction" and creativity a way to participate in this construction. As Aurelio Peccei, the founder of the Club of Rome, said, "Inventing the future is the most important and most difficult human invention."

Hopefully, just as in the 17th century, our present turmoil is stimulating scientific developments which will contribute to inventing the future.

 

The Bilderberg Group
- The Invisible Power House -

The conspiracy theory writers have repeatedly linked one powerful global elite, the Bilderberg Group, with the ultimate take-over of the world. Members of the Bilderberg together with their 'sister' organisations-the Trilateral Commission (known also as the "Child of Bilderberg")(1) and the Council on Foreign Relations(2)-are charged with the post-war take-over of the democratic process. The measures implemented by this group so far prove the control of the world economy through indirect political means.

The constitution of several democratic monarchies of the Western Europe bans members of their royal families from playing an active role in the political process. However, the Bilderberg meetings provide this exact forum and platform for them.
"This unprecedented period of European cooperation is more than a product of simple nation-state diplomacy. One of the key institutions that has fostered unity and cooperation with the Atlantic Community beyond the old concepts has been the Bilderberg Group."(3)
"I tell you frankly that I am deeply alarmed today over the possibility that a right-wing reaction may draw some sections of capital so far away from our traditions as to imperil the entire structure of American life as we know it."(4)

These comments by Pasymowski and Gilbert(3) two decades ago may seem out of phase with the current events in former Yugoslavia, but, in terms of the continued stability of the "European State", they have proven to be largely accurate. Warfare has been removed from the intra-European systems as a means of controlling and directing nationalistic goals and ideas. Even in the case of former Yugoslavia, one observes that the current state of war has resulted from Tito's and the Soviet Union's demise. Consequently, the lid has been lifted on rivals and racial memories which had been artificially kept in place for previous decades. The several proto-states which make up the former Yugoslavia were not part of the economic and social development programs which evolved in Western Europe. As we would see, the way in which the rest of Europe evolved and developed was very different, and for very particular reasons.

Whether co-incidence or not, it is equally ironic that the current Chairman of the Bilderberg, Lord Carrington, was the first UN-appointed representative to bring peace to the war-torn Yugoslavia.

ORIGINS
The single most important personality connected with the birth and creation of the Bilderberg Group is Joseph H. Retinger (also known as L'Eminence-His Grey Eminence). Retinger had a colourful, lifelong career that raised him to the top of the world power ?lites. At his funeral in 1960, Sir Edward Bedington-Behrens said:
"I remember Retinger in the United States picking up the telephone and immediately making an appointment with the President, and in Europe he had complete entr?e in every political circle as a kind of right acquired through trust, devotion and loyalty he inspired."

Retinger, as a Catholic, was viewed by many as an agent of the Vatican, acting in liaison between the Pope and the Father-General of the Jesuit order.

One of Retinger's renowned achievements in European politics was the founding of the European Movement, leading to the establishment of the Council of Europe on 5th May 1949. With its headquarters in Strasbourg, the Council Executive Committee provided Retinger his first major platform for his expansive ideology. From his earlier days at the Sorbonne, Retinger believed in greater European unity, both in military and economic terms. It was also at the same time when his interest in the guidance of the Jesuit order manifested itself. He spent a great deal of his time fulfilling these ambitions. He suggested to Premier Georges Clemenceau a plan to unite Eastern Europe-involving the merging of Austria, Hungary and Poland as a tripartite monarchy under the guidance of the Jesuit order. Clemenceau, doubtful of the Vatican-inspired plan, rejected Retinger's proposal outright. This plan labelled Retinger, thereafter, as a Vatican agent.

Retinger's activities were not limited to uniting Europe. Through his several trips to Mexico he played a key role in the creation of a trade union movement in the 1920s. Due to his unprecedented success, and by gaining the Mexican Government's trust, Retinger convinced them to nationalise the US oil interest in Mexico. In the process, Retinger conducted the secret negotiations with Washington for the Mexican Government.

Retinger also had an active war career. He was the political aide to General Sikorski, and served for the London-based Polish Government-in-exile. In addition, at the age of 58, he parachuted into German-occupied territory outside Warsaw for some sabotage missions.

Due to his high-profile career, in the 1950s he was able to create contacts with numerous high-ranking military officials and political leaders. His main aim was to unite the world in peace. His peace dividend was to be under the control of supernational, powerful organisations. He believed that such organisations would be immune from short-term ideological conflicts erupting between governments. To Retinger, it was insignificant what dominated the economic ideology of a country. He believed these differences could be brought into line by powerful multinational organisations dictating and applying powerful economic and military policies, thereby creating a union and a bond between the nations.

Retinger's personal 'left-wing' views from his heady days convinced him that many leaders of newly born socialist and communist nations would be prepared to talk to him. Additionally, his Church background gave him an arena for dialogue with people from the middle-ground connections in international relations.

Nevertheless, Retinger knew that control of the world affairs cannot be achieved without US participation. In pursuit of this ideology, he began a campaign for the creation of an Atlantic Community. This would make the development of Europe an important political aim for the American politicians, thereby preventing their retreat into political isolation.

Retinger, with this in mind, set out his carefully calculated move by involving one of his close and powerful friends, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands. Prince Bernhard, at the time, was an important figure in the oil industry and held a major position in Royal Dutch Petroleum (Shell Oil), as well as Soci?t? G?n?rale de Belgique-a powerful global corporation.

In 1952 Retinger approached Bernhard with a proposal for a secret conference to involve the NATO leaders in an open and frank discussion on international affairs behind closed doors. The meeting would allow each participant to speak his mind freely because no media representative would be permitted inside; nor would there be any news bulletin about the meeting or the topics discussed. Furthermore, if any leaks occurred, the journalists would be discouraged from writing about it.

Prince Bernhard fully supported Retinger's proposal for an international meeting. Consequently, they formed a committee to organise a plan. In 1952, Bernhard approached the Truman administration and briefed them about the meeting. Despite a positive reception, it was not until the Eisenhower administration when the first American counterpart group was formed. The two key role-players in the US group were General Walter Bedell Smith (Director of the CIA) and C. D. Jackson. Both (European-American) groups working interactively set out to fulfil Retinger's initial plan. From the outset, the American group was heavily influenced by the Rockefeller family, the owners of Standard Oil-competitors of Bernhard's Royal Dutch Petroleum. From then on, the Bilderberg business reflected the concerns of the oil industry in its meetings.

According to Bilderberg's draft document of 1989:
"Bilderberg takes its name from the Bilderberg Hotel in Oosterbeek, Holland, where the first meeting took place in May 1954. That pioneering meeting grew out of the concern expressed by many leading citizens on both sides of the Atlantic that Western Europe and North America were not working together as closely as they should on matters of critical importance. It was felt that regular, off-the-record discussions would help create a better understanding of the complex forces and major trends affecting Western nations in the difficult post-war period."(5)

Retinger's main aim in creating Bilderberg had other more important, inherent aspects than an informal gathering of a group of the world's ?lite. It has been suggested that Bilderberg meetings ultimately would have implemented group dynamics techniques in the shape of a low- key international thinking group with the purpose of sensitising the less enlightened of its membership towards the new transitional diplomacy of the Cold War.

The first meeting witnessed the gathering of ideologies, poles apart. The issue of McCarthyism was reaching its peak in the United States. European participants, exasperated with the McCarthy propaganda, saw in their American counterparts a clear political shift towards an ultra-right-wing fascist state. Memories of World War II still fresh in their minds, the Europeans found the concept rather repulsive.

C. D. Jackson (a member of the CFR), in an attempt to regain the international delegates' confidence, stated:
"Whether McCarthy dies by an assassin's bullet or is eliminated in the normal American way of getting rid of boils on body politics, I prophesy that by the time we hold our next meeting he will be gone from the American scene."(6)

Nevertheless, McCarthyism proved to be a source of embarrassment for the US delegate.

OTHER GROUPS
The concept of Bilderberg was not new. Although similar groups were already in existence at the time, none attracted and provoked global myths the way Bilderberg has.

Groups such as Bohemian Grove, established in 1872 by San Franciscans, played an equally significant role in shaping post-war politics in the US.
"It was at the Grove, it is said, that the Manhattan Project was set up and that Eisenhower was selected as the Republicans' candidate for 1952."(7)

The Ditchley Park Foundation was established in 1953 in Britain with the same aim.(8)

Two years earlier, in 1952, Britain's Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery had suggested the idea of a NATO command-post exercise (a paper drill; no movement of forces) to train army divisional commanders. General Eisenhower, who was then NATO's European Commander, accepted it. As a result, the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers in Europe Exercise-SHAPEX-was created. Ever since, an annual meeting has been held in SHAPE headquarters near Mons, Belgium, and the subject has been broadened to incorporate a wide array of topics.

The historical review of these groups reflects a sudden flourishing trend, and the realisation by the world's leaders of the need for creation of, at times, such overt concepts. The idea of establishing such ?lite groups did not die with the birth of Bilderberg.

In 1957, the first of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs took place.9 Pandit Nehru offered to host the first meeting. The founder members were personalities such as Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein. Scientists from the United States and Soviet Union were regular participants in this East-West gathering of ?lites. Britain is known for its active participation and role in this group.
"The best feature of Pugwash is that it brings together people from East, West and non-aligned countries."(9)

Pugwash proved particularly valuable at the time when the relation between East and West was at a stalemate. Many significant topics were discussed in this forum. Ways of monitoring arms control agreements, nuclear disarmament, and reduction of East-West tensions were always on the top of the agenda. In the 1970s Pugwash embraced a range of issues including biological, chemical and conventional arms control, environment and development problems as well as conflicts around the world.

One of the latest groups is the Williamsburg, better known as the Asian Window. Its first meeting was financed by the late John D. Rockefeller in 1971, and continues to date. It brings together the Asian leaders and the Americans. Williamsburg has been particularly effective for discussing Vietnam, or the Indonesian corruption, or supposedly non-existent Japanese exchange controls. Different experiences of trade with China and Russia, or how Singapore has a lower infant mortality than America, have been some of the topics in the Williamsburg forum.

Nonetheless, none of these groups-including the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilaterals-commands the influence the Bilderberg has obtained in shaping and dictating global policies.

CHAIRMAN
"The first [Bilderberg] meeting was convened under the chairmanship of H. R. H. Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, who served as chairman for twenty-two years. He was succeeded by Lord Home of the Hirsel, former Prime Minister for the United Kingdom, who chaired the meetings for four years. At the 1980 meeting, Lord Home turned over the chairmanship to Walter Scheel, former President of the Federal Republic of Germany. In 1985, Mr Scheel resigned, and was succeeded by Lord Roll of Ipsden, President of S. G. Warburg Group plc. At 1989 meeting, Lord Roll turned over the chairmanship to Lord Carrington,"(10) who still chairs the meetings.

CHARACTER OF BILDERBERG MEETINGS
"What is unique about Bilderberg as a forum is (1) the broad cross-section of leading citizens, in and out of government, that are assembled for nearly three days of informal discussion about topics of current concern especially in the fields of foreign affairs and the international economy; (2) the strong feeling among participants that, in view of the differing attitudes and experiences of the Western nations, there is a clear need to develop an understanding in which these concerns can be accommodated; and (3) the privacy of these meetings, which has no purpose other than to allow leading citizens to speak their minds openly and freely.

"In short, Bilderberg is a recognised, flexible and informal international leadership forum in which different viewpoints can be expressed and mutual understanding enhanced."(11)

In further recognition of this aspect, Paddy Ashdown, the Leader of the Liberal Party and a participant in the 1989 Bilderberg meeting, wrote to me:

"In view of the recent events right across Europe, this has turned out to have been an exceptionally useful opportunity to meet and discuss with many of the most expert people in the world on international relations. I found it a very stimulating and informative gathering."(12)

But others, such as Prince Charles, Lord Callaghan and Sir Edward Heath, were rather shy in their responses.(13)

PARTICIPANTS
There are usually 115 participants in each annual meeting. Eighty are from Western Europe and the remainder from North America. From this mixture, one-third are from government and politics, and the remaining two-thirds from industry, finance, education and communications. All the participants claim to attend the meeting in their private capacity and not as officials-though this claim, in the wake of the outcome of subsequent meetings, has proven to be highly questionable.

Participants are invited to the Bilderberg meeting by the Chairman, following his consultations and recommendations by the Steering Committee membership, the Advisory Group and the Honorary Secretaries-General. This approach ensures a full, informed and balanced discussion of the agenda items. The individuals are chosen based on their knowledge, standing and experience. The previous participants maintain that, at the meetings, no resolutions are proposed, no votes are taken and no policy statements are made.

FUNDING
The costs of the annual meetings are usually the responsibility of the Steering Committee members of the host country. But, the expenses of maintaining the Bilderberg meetings are covered entirely by private subscriptions. Although the meeting reports are published, nevertheless they are strictly for the participating members only. No reports are made available to the media.
 

FOOTNOTES

 

The Bilderberger Candidate

Where do candidates come from? Do they emerge out of nowhere? Do they just erupt on the national scene? Or, are they quietly chosen by covert power brokers to move the planet closer to a New World Order, a One World Government, a global dictatorship with high-tech feudalism as its goal?

Take for example Jimmy Carter. He was an obscure peanut farmer, the almost unknown governor of Georgia. Then -- as if by magic -- a media blitz blew him onto the covers of national magazines and established him as a front-runner in the 1976 election.

Likewise, Bill Clinton was an unknown governor of the state of Arkansas -- a defacto Rockefeller fiefdom, notorious for generational corruption that surpassed even the legendary graft of New York's Tammany Hall and the Democratic machine of the Daleys' Chicago.

After Clinton was invited to a 1991 meeting of the Bilderberg Group in Baden-Baden, Germany, he became a front-running candidate for President in 1992. Then, despite --- or maybe because of -- his well-known sexual/drug addictions and compromised background, Clinton was selected as the Group's choice for U.S. President.

Since its inception in 1954, the supra-national and highly secretive Bilderberg Group has played an active role in coordinating economic and political policies on a global level. An international cabal of corporate honchos and government officials, the Bilderbergers are simply the overlords of the Global Ruling Class.

According to Peter Thompson's essay "Bilderberg and the West" from the book "Trilateralism" (edited by Holly Sklar, South End Press, Boston), "Bilderberg is neither a world super-government nor is it merely a club where incidental shoptalk takes place. Top executives from the world's leading multinational corporations meet with top national political figures at Bilderberg meetings to consider jointly the immediate and long-term policies facing the West. . . "

"Bilderberg is not the only means of Western collective management of the world order, it is part of an increasingly dense system of transnational management. . ." writes Thompson. "Where necessary, a consensus is engineered on issues which must get congressional/parliamentary approval, but wherever possible executive agreements between governments are used to avoid the democratic process altogether."

Thompson writes that "bodies like the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the British Royal Institute for International Affairs, commonly known as 'Chatham House, and transnational counterparts like Bilderberg and the Trilateral Commission play a crucial role in formulating policy directions, molding establishment consensus and even testing for likely opposition."

At a GOP fundraiser in Paradise Valley, Montana, New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman denied that she was tapped by the Bilderberg Group to run for U.S. President in 2000. "I was just learning," asserted Whitman, one of a literal handful of women invited to attend the secretive May 14-17, 1998 meeting in Turnberry Hotel, Ayrshire, Scotland.

At a picturesque ranch house about 40 miles north of Yellowstone National Park --- where Dennis Quaid filmed his TNT movie "Everything That Rises" --- Whitman was the guest of honor, introduced by Montana Gov. Mark Racicot at a fundraiser for Montana Rep. Rick Hill. Whitman's speech included the cryptic comment that "in the year 2000, the country's going to get the kind of president it deserves."

Afterwards, in remarks to the press, Whitman alluded to the conspiratorial reputation of the Bilderberger Group, saying "it's not a cabal."

Notwithstanding her remarks, 1998 Bilderberg Group attendees included the usual Globalist Good Ole Boys, regulars like David Rockefeller, Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank; and Henry Kissinger, former U.S. Secretary of State and current Chairman of Kissinger Associates, Inc., a schmooze-for-hire firm that sells high-level introductions to world-class tyrants, arms dealers and their ilk.

Women attendees at Turnberry were few. Only Her Majesty Queen of the Netherlands; CFR member Jessica Tuchman Matthews, President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Margaret MacMillan, Editor of International Journal; Marie-Josee Kravis, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute; and several European Community bureaucrats shared this "honor" with the New Jersey Governor.

Whitman herself acknowledged the fact that the obsessive secrecy has roiled many within the Group. She hinted that there was internal dissent regarding the bizarre and restrictive protocols, but defended the exclusion of the media, saying that people can speak privately and acknowledge their mistakes without being held to task by their constitutents.

Her congenial husband, Bill Whitman, who facetiously referred to himself as "the first lady of New Jersey in drag," added that when he flew in from London, he stayed in a motel down the road; he wasn't even allowed to sleep at the Turnberry Resort with his wife, the Governor.

Playing a round of golf at the exclusive resort the next day, Bill Whitman remarked in amusement that "people would be popping up from behind the shrubbery taking pictures." The Bilderbergers' tradition of secrecy has evidently created its own mystique and celebrity status.

It's not hard to see why the Group, command-and-control globalists, tapped Gov. Whitman. She's photogenic; she's attractive; and her politics reflect the Group's agenda --- people control under the guise of "environmentalism" and "free trade."

In Montana, dressed in an ivory blouse, dark slacks and cowboy boots, Whitman, with her blonde Princess Di hairstyle, appeared casually elegant even in a country setting. She spoke passionately of her "goal of preserving one million acres in New Jersey that's undeveloped but not preserved" as a "protective" measure, a faux-environmentalist stance that will undoubtedly win her many supporters.

Likewise her veto of a New Jersey bill that would have banned so-called partial birth abortions earned her the animosity of the religious right. Her answer to continuing criticism? "I'm not pro-abortion," said Whitman. "I'm pro-choice." This kind of sophistry is also highly respected by the political elites. [That is not sophistry, that is a legitimate and meaningful statement. -Ed.]

Repeating the mantra that "we are in a global economy," she inferred agreement with the Group's agenda --- linking countries through entangling economic treaties like GATT and NAFTA, as well as financial strangleholds through the International Monetary Fund and other multinational corporate loans with the usual draconian conditions.

After the scandalous record of the disgraced Clinton administration, Gov. Whitman as a "pragmatic" pro-choice Republican woman would appear to be the Group's obvious choice for President.

Since its founding, the Bilderberg Group has functioned as a defacto private Global Politburo with 120 attendees at recent yearly meetings. Historically, the Group's power is awesome. Bill Clinton, an obscure Arkansas governor, was tapped to run for president. Likewise, Margaret Thatcher as well as Tony Blair were tapped by the Bilderbergers to assume the reins of government in the United Kingdom. Congressman Gerald Ford --- later U.S. president --- also attended Group meetings in 1964 and 1966.

After Gov. Whitman's attendance at Turnberry, it's highly probable that she will either be a Republican vice presidential candidate with George W. Bush in 2000 or a presidential candidate herself in 2004.

In fact, the propaganda machine has already started. Bilderberger Bill Kristol, publisher of The Weekly Standard, has had his editor Fred Barnes write a glowing report of Bush Jr. as "The Heavyweight." This puff piece on behalf of the Texas governor attempts to establish him as a primary contender for president in the next election.

Objections to Bilderberg range from all sides of the political spectrum. A private, secret --- and by all accounts conspiratorial --- consensus on matters of public importance is considered at least in bad taste if not poor judgment by all serious advocates of representative government. In fact, the diffidence and arrogance of the Global Ruling Class --- the elites and their technocrats, the New World Orderlies --- seems outrageously antiquated in the face of continuing global problems. These interlocking supra-national elites --- members of the Bilderberg Group, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Royal Institute of International Affairs, as well as the foundations and think tanks of the Global Plutocrats --- would do well to reconsider their activities.

If global techno-feudalism, as posited by George Orwell's blueprint for world tyranny, "1984," and H. G. Wells' "The Open Conspiracy" is the Group's objective, then sovereign individuals of every nation will rise up with unprecedented fervor. An historical precedent, of course, is the collapse of the Tower of Babel, a case of seeming divine intervention which shattered the globalists' plan for their precious One World Government.

Those who pride themselves as the descendants of Nimrod had better think twice. There will be no cushions for them when they fall the next time around.

Gov. Whitman's choice is after all the Hobbes' choice. She is merely a pawn in the game, another contingency in the Group's global ledger of assets and liabilities. And the Group --- covert global king-makers and king-breakers --- is known to hedge its bets. Walter Mondale and Dianne Feinstein were Bilderbergers once too, but their political stars rose only so high.

The significance of her choice? As the Group has chosen Gov. Whitman, so she can still choose to opt out.

Copyright 1998. Uri Dowbenko, CEO of New Improved Entertainment Corp., can be reached by e-mail at u.dowbenko@mailcity.com.

 
The Bilderberg and the New World Order

Bilderberg Meets Secretly in Toronto

From Staff Reports

The Bilderberg, the highest echelon of the global financial and political elite, recently met at the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce Leadership Center (nicknamed the "Bohemian Grove of Canada" ) on the outskirts of King City, a suburb of Toronto.

At the meeting, which lasted from May 30 to June 2, the Bilderberg discussed global control of the air, water and public health, as well as the possible multi-billion dollar sale of the Canadian government-owned electric utility Ontario Hydro, according to informed sources quoted by The Spotlight.

As usual, the mainstream media completely ignored the event. This was not surprising, since many media power brokers regularly attend the meetings, including representatives of the major TV networks and the New York Times.

However, this year one major Canadian newspaper shattered the wall of silence in a spectacular fashion. The Toronto Star, one of the few remaining independent newspapers in Canada, ran a front page story on May 30 under the headline "Black Plays Host to World Leaders."

John Deverell, a Toronto Star business reporter, broke the story, based on a detailed news release from the Toronto-based New World Order Intelligence Update. Among the more than 100 attendees from around the world, Deverell listed U.S. Defense Secretary William Perry, Prime Minister Jean Chretien, Henry Kissinger, the queens of Netherlands and Spain "as well as other business, political and academic elite."

"For 42 years," Deverell reported, "the secretive organization has devoted itself to strengthening the Atlantic military alliance and economies... The guest list and agenda for the four-day conference are secret."

According to media magnate and permanent Bilderberg member Conrad Black, the ban on reporters "makes discussion more intimate and candid. There are no massive indiscretions, but the exchanges can be quite heated." This is a polite way of saying that members can secretly speak their minds about whatever grandiose schemes of world conquest they envision themselves as having the divine right to execute, without fearing that their words will ever be heard by the public.

This tactic is very similar to the Non-Attribution Rule used at Council on Foreign Relations meetings, which prevents statements made by attendees from being reported in the media. Many media CEOs, news anchors and influential members of the press fill seats in the CFR.

The Bilderberg and the New World Order

As far as global politics and finance go, the Bilderberg is the top of the pyramid, the all-seeing eye gazing upon the construction of a New World Order . This one-world system of governance, lurking in the shadows cast by flowery language about our new "global village," will transfer nearly all economic and political power into the hands of a small group of the world elite.

According to Bilderberg's draft document of 1989, "Bilderberg takes its name from the Bilderberg Hotel in Oosterbeek, Holland, where the first meeting took place in May 1954. That pioneering meeting grew out of the concern expressed by many leading citizens on both sides of the Atlantic that Western Europe and North America were not working together as closely as they should on matters of critical importance. It was felt that regular, off-the-record discussions would help create a better understanding of the complex forces and major trends affecting Western nations in the difficult post-war period."

According to Conrad Black, the Bilderberg "was set up in the mid-fifties by Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands.... [Meetings] normally include senior officials of the governments of all the countries represented, with a wide swath of enlightened business, academic, media and military leaders...."

Prince Bernhard gave the go-ahead, but the idea for the Bilderberg belonged to Joseph H. Retinger, a man who could make an appointment with the President of the United States just by picking up the telephone. In 1952, Retinger proposed a secret conference to Prince Bernhard which would involve the NATO leaders in an open and frank discussion on international affairs behind closed doors.

The Prince thought it was a grand idea, and they formed a committee to plan the conference. Berhhard briefed the Truman administration about the meeting in 1952, and although the idea was warmly embraced in the U.S., the first American counterpart group was not formed until the Eisenhower administration.

CIA Director General Walter Bedell Smith and C.D. Jackson were key players in organizing the American counterpart group, heavily influenced by the Rockefeller dynasty, whose Standard Oil holdings competed with Bernhard's Royal Dutch Petroleum. Hence, the interests of the oil industry were well-represented at Bilderberg meetings.

At early meetings of the Bilderberg, attendees expressed frustration with American politics, then in the throes of McCarthyism, whose nationalist ideology stood in the way of global planning. C. D. Jackson tried to quell their fears by saying, "Whether McCarthy dies by an assassin's bullet or is eliminated in the normal American way of getting rid of boils on body politics, I prophesy that by the time we hold our next meeting he will be gone from the American scene."

Bilderberg meetings are held in remote places, and attendees are encouraged to leave spouses and aides at home, to not use prepared texts, and to conduct discussions in English as much as possible.

Director and advisory board members include Gianni Agnelli of Fiat, Dwayne Andreas (controlling shareholder of Archer-Daniels Midland), Zbigniew Brzezinski (former national security advisor in the Carter administration), Lord Carrington (former British foreign and defense secretary and secretary-general of NATO), Andrew Knight (editor of the Economist), Richard Perle (former U.S. assistant secretary of National Defense and one of the champions of the Strategic Defense Initiative and Euro-missile deployment), Paul Volker (former Federal Reserve chairman), and George Will (U.S. conservative columnist and commentator), to name just a few.

"Providentially, the world became more accessible for me as Canada became less commodious," Conrad Black said in his biography, "A Life in Progress". "It was from Bilderberg that our company's eventual vocation as an international newspaper organization arose."

Critics of the Bilderberg say that the secret group:

• perceives itself as being supra-governmental;
• manipulates global finances and establishes rigid and binding monetary rates around the world;
• selects political figures whom the Bilderberg decrees should become rulers, and targets those whom it wants removed from power;
• decides which countries shall wage war on others.

 

"Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will pledge with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government." -Henry Kissinger in an address to the Bilderberg organization meeting at Evian, France, May 21, 1992. Transcribed from a tape recording made by one of the Swiss delegates.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, [1759]

"There are only 90,000 people out there, who gives a damn?"
-Henry Kissinger, on the Marshall Islands, which include Bikini and Enewetak Atolls, sites of at least 66 full scale US nuclear (including dirty fusion) bomb tests

Early Life

Henry Kissinger was the first-born son of German Jewish parents, Louis and Paula. The couple led their family to freedom in August 1938, less than three months before the Kristallnacht riots destroyed most of the Jewish institutions in Nazi Germany.

"My life in F?rch seems to have passed without leaving any lasting impressions," Kissinger told a German reporter more recently. That part of my childhood is not a key to anything." Minimizing the trauma he faced as a fifteen year old refugee, the statesman added, "I was not consciously unhappy. I was not acutely aware of what was going on. For children, these things are not that serious."

"Give me a break," I though on reading this, he's either got to be kidding or steeped in massive denial. I too, was a first-born son of a German¡©Jewish father and Austrian mother who were also fortunate to have survived the Holocaust. I could relate to Kissinger's plight better than most. Given this background, plus my postdoctoral degree in behavioral science, I understood well the role persecution can play in the development of personalities and personality disorders.

My mother, at age sixteen, was among the last group of Jews to leave Nazi Austria. Her immortal picture can be seen in the National Holocaust Museum, where she, among dozens, was photographed on her knees, scrubbing the streets of Vienna at Nazi gunpoint.

Though Kissinger may have been spared the worst, I found it incomprehensible that he could have left Nazi Germany, at that age and time, unfazed.

Denial and Paranoia

I was not alone in this view. Kissinger's childhood friends also felt his denial was a form of "self delusion". Isaacson wrote:

"Some of them see his escape from memory as a key to his legendary insecurities. The child who had to pretend to be someone else so that he could get into soccer games, they say, became an adult who was prone to deceit and self-deception in the pursuit of acceptance by political and social patrons..."

Despite Kissinger's denials, the Nazi atrocities "were able to damage his soul," said Fritz Kraemer, a German gentile who resisted Hitler and later became Kissinger's student in the U.S. Army. "For the formative years of his youth, he faced the horror of his world coming apart, of the father he loved being turned into a helpless mouse."

Kissinger's most obvious personality traits, Kraemer argued, could be traced to his Nazi experience. "It made him seek order and it made him hunger for acceptance, even if it meant trying to please those he considered his intellectual inferiors."

For Kissinger, the Nazi experience severed the connection between God's will and historic evolution - a basic principle of the Jewish faith and one of its most important contributions to Western philoso-phy. For faithful Jews, historic meaning is linked to divine justice. After witnessing Hitler's horror, Kissinger abandoned his religion and embarked on an intellectual journey to find an alternative way to interpret history.

Kissinger's traumatic childhood also instilled in him "a deep distrust of other people." He felt compelled to establish secret wiretaps on the phones of even his closest aides.

Another symptom of Kissinger's Holocaust rearing was his tendency to disguise, as an adult, any sign of personal weakness. This compulsion of his had been commonly observed; particularly in his approach to foreign policy negotiations. Kissinger's father, "whom he loved deeply, was graced by gentleness and a heart of unquestioning kindness. But such virtues served only to make him seem weak in the face of Nazi humiliations." Thus, as Kissinger matured, he "repeatedly attached himself to forceful, often over-bearing patrons with powerful personalities," including Nelson Rockefeller and Richard Nixon.

Still another childhood legacy was his "philosophical pessimism." He maintained a dark and verboten world view "suffused with a sense of tragedy." He embraced the view that civilization's tendency is toward decay, and "statesman must continually fight against the natural tendency toward international instability."

"Given a choice of order or justice, he often said, para-phrasing Goethe, he would choose order. He had seen too clearly the consequences of disorder."

As a result, Nixon's Secretary of State became a philosophical, intellectual, and political conservative. He developed an intuitive aversion to change through revolution and became "uncomfortable with the passions of democracy and populism." In essence, Kissinger never embraced "the messy glory of the American political system" particularly since it constrained his "Realpolitik" approach to administering foreign policy.

The Harvard Experience

In the fall of 1947, Kissinger returned from [a military tour in] Germany to join Harvard's class of 1950 as a twenty-four-year-old mentally gifted sophomore. "We never, ever discussed our Jewishness," recalled Arthur Gilman, Kissinger's roommate. But during late-night discussions, Kissinger strongly opposed Israel's creation. "He said it would alienate the Arabs and jeopardize U.S. interests. I thought it was a strange view for someone who was a refugee from Nazi Germany." Herbert Engelhardt, another dormitory resident said, "I got the impression that Kissinger suffered less anti-semitism as a youth than I did growing up in New Jersey."

Kissinger's university acquaintances described him as an intensely driven, excessively mature, incessant reader who bit his fingernails and established his own rule. Despite his expressed interest in sports, the young immigrant skipped all athletic events, avoided drinking and partying with his housemates, failed to join clubs or societies, contributed nothing to school publications, and made no effort to participate in student activities. "Henry could be charming if he decided he wanted to be," said Gilman, "but he was really a loner."

With his interests peaked in government and philosophy, the straight-A student became fascinated with William Yandell Elliot, his first¡©semester course professor in "The Development of Constitutional Government." Owing to outstanding academic achievements, Kissinger was entitled to have Elliot serve as his senior faculty tutor. And in recommending Henry for Phi Bets Kappa, Elliot's endorsement read:

"I would say that I have not had any students in the past five years, even among the summa cum laude group, who have had the depth and philosophical insight shown by Mr. Kissinger. On the other hand, his mind lacks grace and is Teutonic in its systemic thoroughness. He has a certain emotional bent, perhaps from a refugee origin, that occasionally comes out. But I would regard him as on the whole a very balanced and just mind."

Kissinger's "Meaning of History"

"In Harvard's 350-year history," wrote another Harvard professor, Isaacson, "it has learned to take in stride the peculiar combination of intellectual brilliance and quirkiness that occasionally blossoms among its undergraduates. Even so, Henry Kissinger's senior thesis is still described in awed tones."

The 383-page "Meaning of History" introduced themes about freedom, morality, revolution, creativity, and bureaucracy that recurred throughout Kissinger's life. It provided a taste of the intellectual haughtiness for which he became famous; it provided an impression of how the future statesman waged the pursuit of peace as "a constant balancing act that lacked larger meaning."

In his chapter covering the early twentieth-century political philosopher Spengler, titled "History as an Institution," Kissinger paraphrased the nationalistic German scholar: "... amidst a repetition of cataclysmic wars the civilization petrifies and dies."

Thus, Kissinger advanced Spengler's portrayal of history as an incessant and existentially doomed power struggle: "a vast succession of catastrophic upheavals of which power is not only the manifestation but the exclusive aim." Then Kissinger provided a stark portrayal of historic determinism: "Life is suffering, birth involves death. Transitoriness is the fate of existence."

The cure for this moribund state of affairs, according to his thesis, lies in the development of personal awareness and "inward conviction" of each individual's freedom - a philosophy advanced most notably by the famous French existentialist Jean Paul Sartre who, following the lead of Karl Marx, became a principal promoter of communism.

Kissinger was also drawn to European conservatism, which focused on national sovereignty and balanced powers. "Youthful fascination with Kant's political writings could have moved Kissinger toward a Wilsonian view of America's interests and mission," explained Peter Dickson in his study of Kissinger. "Instead, the ?migr? turned to Meternich and Bismarck - the prime practitioners of power politics."

Kissinger's Realpolitik: Visions of a New World Order

Kissinger's Realpolitik - his practical philosophy of political history - as described in his Harvard thesis and demonstrated by his diplomatic behavior, showed that throughout his career he sought to "preserve [and even define a] world order." His approach to peace implied "artfully tending to balances of power." World peace was, therefore, not the defining policy objective for Kissinger.

Kissinger believed that a "balance of power" was the best that could be obtained. This, he believed, could be achieved through the acceptance and control of limited conflicts - "small wars." With this in mind, the diplomat's mission was to insure that the United States and not the Russians would lead and win many of these.

Henry Kissinger: The Walking, Talking Conflict of Interest

EXTRA! (10-11/89), Best of EXTRA!

On Sept. 13, 1989, the day Henry Kissinger ended his tenure as a paid analyst for ABC News, he became the newest member of CBS's board of directors. Kissinger's ties to the TV networks have always been close; no other "expert" is as ubiquitous on TV, commenting on what U.S. policy should be toward countries from Eastern Europe to the Middle East to Latin America.

In recent months, Kissinger has used his high media profile in a spirited defense of China. In a Washington Post/L.A. Times column ("The Caricature of Deng as a Tyrant Is Unfair", 8/1/89), Kissinger argued against sanctions: "China remains too important for America's national security to risk the relationship on the emotions of the moment." He asserted: "No government in the world would have tolerated having the main square of its capital occupied for eight weeks by tens of thousands of demonstrators."

Kissinger's defense of China and other repressive governments has sometimes raised eyebrows. What it has not raised is tough questions from TV interviewers about Kissinger's business ties to these same governments. In a column alluding to FAIR's study that found Kissinger to be Nightline's most frequent guest, the Washington Post's Richard Cohen (8/29/89) sounded an urgent appeal: "Will someone please ask Henry Kissinger the 'C' question?" The "C" stands for conflict of interest.

When he's not pontificating in the media about foreign affairs, he's engaging in foreign financial affairs through his secretive consulting firm, Kissinger & Associates. The firm, representing some 30 multinational companies -- including American Express, H.J. Heinz, ITT and Lockheed -- earns profits by "opening doors" for investors in China, Latin America and elsewhere (New York Times, 4/30/89).

A Wall Street Journal article by John Fialka ("Mr. Kissinger Has Opinions on China -- and Business Ties", 9/15/89) reported that Kissinger also heads China Ventures, a company engaged in joint ventures with China's state bank. As its brochure explains, China Ventures invests only in projects that "enjoy the unquestioned support of the People's Republic of China." The Journal article was unusual in exploring the private business interests behind U.S. foreign policy, not the media's strong suit -- even when, as in Kissinger's case, they are rolled into one person.

In a letter to network TV news programs, FAIR urged that guest analysts be questioned about their financial links to the subjects they are discussing, and that such links be disclosed on the air: "Our society demands financial disclosure of politicians and government officials; shouldn't we expect the news media to disclose the financial interests of their guest experts when such interests are related to the issues under discussion?"

War Seen As Part of Plutocrats' Agenda

What charter? With Western Europe safe, NATO moves into the nation-building mode.

The U.S.-led NATO attack on a sovereign nation is part of a much bigger Bilderberg plan than stopping Serbians from butchering ethnic Albanians, according to a high State Department source.

"It is important to the Bilderberg scheme for world government to get NATO out from the limitations of its own charter," said the source, a reliable observer for more than a decade.

The treaty limits the alliance to a defensive position, providing that if any member nation is attacked, all NATO countries would respond, he pointed out. The treaty has no authority for an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation.

"By bombing Kosovo, the precedent is set," he said. "Despite the terms of the treaty, NATO now can go anywhere and attack anybody. This solidifies NATO's role as the UN's world army."

While not officially sanctioned by the UN because Red China and Russia would exercise Security Council vetoes and block the action, the UN bureaucrats privately celebrate NATO's attack, he said.

"It's all so transparent, but the media covers it up and Americans don't read enough anyway - that's why they're so damn ignorant," he said.

While ethnic Albanian blood is being spilled, the amount is exaggerated for propaganda purposes and there's much bigger bloodbaths elsewhere if we're looking for a fight, he said.

He also insisted that there was absolutely no risk of the civil war in Yugoslavia spilling over borders and involving other nations, another of the White House rationales.

President Clinton, he said, is "the most blood thirsty draft dodger in history."

Giving NATO a global role instead of only a mission to defend Western Europe is part of both evolving a world army and conditioning the public mind to accept surrendering national sovereignty, he said.

The source pointed to a March 28 column by Jim Hoagland of The Washington Post, who regularly attends Trilateral and Bilderberg meetings.

"The intervention in Kosovo should revive the concept of a `right to intervene' and lead to changes in the United Nation's standards for sovereignty and the existing protections those standards provide for criminal governments," Hoagland wrote.

"NATO's decision to bypass the Security Council to avoid Russian and Chinese vetoes based on `sovereignty' arguments reflects poorly not on NATO but on the Security Council as it is organized," he wrote.

"Using the Kosovo operation to override outmoded sovereignty concerns in international relations would be one measure of political success for this high-cost intervention," Hoagland added.

"Hoagland's column couldn't be better Bilderberg propaganda if Henry Kissinger had dictated it," the official said.

The Truth About Bosnia

From the author of ISRAEL BETRAYED, Barry Chamish sends us this article originally published in Leading Edge: His title was The Truth About Bosnia; Chamish' title to us is NWO KOSOVO My title is ***CAN YOU STAND THE TRUTH ABOUT NWO***

Maybe we do not want to know . .

***********************************************************

December 19, 1994, writer Warren Hough claims that Henry Kissinger was accused by French President Mitterand of being the "master manipulator" of the Yugoslav conflict.

The allegation is said to have been made at a meeting of the European Security Conference in Budapest, Hungary. According to Warren Hough:

As part of their war plans, the Serb leaders spent millions of dollars on contracts and payoffs in the United States.

Wall Street sources say that most of these short-lived deals were apparently set up to make money for Kissinger's consulting firm, Kissinger Associates, the founding director of which was Lord Carrington, a "peace" negotiator in the former Yugoslavia.

Money was also made for two of Kissinger's cronies, Lawrence Eagleberger and Brent Scowcroft. A review of bank records in New York City revealed that as early as 1992 Eagleberger (former US Secretary of State) and Scowcroft (White House national security advisor for George Bush), concealed a compromising "cash nexus" to the Serbs while they were supposedly formulating "impartial U.S. positions" toward the warring ethnic factions of the former Yugoslavia.

It is a point of interest that an advisor to Serb leader, Radovan Karadzic has been Sir Alfred Sherman, who has operated from an apartment next door to Karadzic's office.

According to published research, Sherman is known as the "inventor of Margaret Thatcher", and he was at the forefront of the maneuvering that led to her election.

The Serbs were funded by the Elite via Belgrade banks in involving massive drug money laundering. It is also amazing how many "foundations" were set up in the former Yugoslavia by financial speculator George Soros. He has set up these fronts in Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia and Belgrade.

Soros is a close friend of Lawrence Eagleberger at Kissinger Associates, the former US ambassador to Belgrade and a close ally of Slobodon Milosevic.

According to writer and researcher Ben Viden, writing in Nexus magazine in February 1996, America, Germany and Israel wre running a secret airlift of arms to Croatia and Bosnia from the start of the conflict.

French journalists revealed in 1994 that CIA agents were luring Bosnian Muslims into reckless and hopeless counter-attacks against the Serbs on false promises of U.S. support -- a fact backed up by George Kenney, an American official in charge of Yugoslavia affairs at the US State Department until he quit in disgust on August 14, 1992.

Warren Hough states that while the Muslims were set up, the Kissinger network was playing the "good-guy-bad-guy" game, which manipulators use so often. It involved the two Serb leaders, Milosevic and Karadzic, according to Hough.

Under this scenario, Milosevic, the client of Kissinger Associates, publicly repudiated and condemned the illegal onslaught of Karadzic's troops against Bosnian Muslims.

But covertly the Milosevic government furnished the "renegade" forces of Karadzic with all the weapons and support they needed to wage an implacable "war of extermination" against their Muslim neighbors.

Muslim resupply was, of course, blocked by "the UN arms embargo."

The research also claims that Saudi Arabia, itself a fascist tyranny, was being set up by this plan. According to some sources, King Faud was repeatedly assured that the U.S. planned to lift the arms embargo in time to allow weapons to reach the Muslims.

As a result, the King convinced other Islamic leaders to have faith in Washington.

Now, the Saudi monarchy is renounced as a traitor to Islam, which, of course, suits the manipulators well.

In the light of all this, there are some interesting connections between the "peace negotiators" in Bosnia.

Lord Carrington (Royal Institute of International Affairs, Bilderberger, Trilateral Commission, Committee of 300); Lloyd Owen, (Bilderberger, Trilateral Commission) and Sweden's Carl Bildt (Bilderberger) followed each other as official "peace negotiators" for the European Union in the former Yugoslavia.

Cyrus Vance (CFR, TC, BIL, Comm300) was the UN "peace negotiator" while at the same time a director of Manufacturers Hanover Trust. When Vance resigned, the UN appointed Norway's Thorvald Stoltenberg (TC, BIL). And, when they understandably failed to "achieve peace," Jimmy Carter (TC), flies to Bosnia as an "independent negotiator."

Later came Richard Holbrooke (TC, CFR, BIL) as the peace envoy of Bill Clinton (CFR, TC, BIL), and the U.S. ambassador of Yugoslavia was Warren Zimmerman (TC, CFR) who reported to Warren Christopher (TC, CFR).

Remember the horrific genocide in Rwanda?

Who arrived in Rwanda just days before it broke out on an undisclosed "diplomatic mission"? Lord Carrington and Henry Kissinger.

Can pigs fly?

So, the contrived "Bosnian Conflict" has led to the creation of the biggest multinational force assembled since World War II, made possible by deliberately-caused human suffering.

The main front man for this NATO world army was Bill Clinton, (CFR, TC, BIL), the "yes man" for David Rockefeller and the Elite.

On December 6, 1995, we saw a full-page advertisement in the (CIA-controlled) Washington Post placed by an organization calling itself the "Committee for American Leadership in Bosnia," signed by Zbigniew Brzezinski (CFR and TC founder, BIL), Congressman Stephen Solarz (CFR), George Soros (BIL),Michael Armacost (CFR and president of the Elite Brookings Institute), and Leslie Gelb (TC, president of CFR),

We have one-party states within a one-party world under a one-party army.

How many more have to suffer before the political stooges stop being duped?

How many more tragedies before the human race takes control of its own destiny?

What is true of Bosnia is also true of the conflict in Kosovo, stage two in the Balkans NATO-New World Order agenda.

Again we have the grotesque site of Madeleine Albright, the U.S. Secretary of State and High Priestess of American politics making speeches about "peace" and "freedom" when she is responsible for implementing policies of genocide.

This is the same Madeleine Albright who is involved in Project Monarch and other mind control programmes in which endless numbers of children are tortured and traumatised beyond the imagination.

To her the horrors of Kosovo are meaningless, except as a means to achieve the goal of those she salvishly serves.

Look at the other major puppets in the Kosovo massacre, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. Both are knowing players in the agame of global control on behalf of their puppet masters. Both are worthy successors to the stream of deeply corrupt mass murderers who have occupied the White House and Downing Street.

They know that those who implement the abuse of ethnic Albanians are controlled by the same people who enforce the NATO bombings in response to this "tthnic cleansing".

As the Millennium approaches, the creation of global chaos will be increased at every turn and there is every chance that what we are seeing in Kosovo today will escalate into a much wider conflict.

Watch for the involvement of China and future hostilities also as NATO emerges as the global police force.

We need to stop looking to politicians for answers and start organizing ourselves in our own communities to build local economies and organizations which can operate outside this manipulation.

A good statement of intent, in my view, would be a mass-boycott of all state and national elections. To vote under present circumstances is to give credence to a system that is designed to control us and not to set us free.

By refusing to vote and have any part in it, we can show how we feel. We can say to the manipulators:

"We know what you are doing and the game is up."

"We will no longer be manipulated into supporting and maintaining the one-party state and a one-party world."

Curious George

A CIA spymaster who headed the shadowy intelligence agency during one of its murkiest periods, the mid-1970s - when it was bankrolling the murderous coup in Chile and training cadres of right-wing Latin American militarists (including one Manuel Noreiga) in torture tactics - last week called for the release of Gen. Augusto "Cattle Prod" Pinochet from his "unjust" detention in Britain.

Yes, it was none other than good old George Bush, throwing the colossal force of his moral integrity behind Pinochet's cause, which has also been embraced by such humanitarian stalwarts as Margaret Thatcher and Henry Kissinger, MSNBC reports.

Pinochet, of course, is "suffering" from a draconian "incarceration" in a four-bedroom mansion in Surrey (which is costing his hard-right sugar daddies a cool $16,000 per month) while the British government decides whether to extradite him to Spain to face murder charges stemming from his tyrannical rule in Chile.

George, no doubt with a fond look back to those days when he used to help his good friend Gussy kick Commie butt (kidnapped, strapped-down, strung-up, slit-open, flayed-and-salted alleged Commie butt, sure, but what the hey), called Pinochet's luxury lock-up "a travesty of justice."

Well, he and Gus would know all about that, wouldn't they?

Their Suharto and Ours

In December, 1975, President Ford and his Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, visited President Suharto in Indonesia. They reacted with a nod and a wink to his plans to seize East Timor. The day after they left, Indonesian forces invaded the distant island, using American arms. In the invasion and ensuing occupation, a third of East Timor's 600,000 people died.

When it was pointed out that using American arms aid for aggression violated U.S. law, Mr. Kissinger reportedly told his staff: "Can't we construe [stopping] a Communist government in the middle of Indonesia as self-defense?" (East Timor was in fact remote from Indonesia, and its mostly Roman Catholic people wanted independence, not Communism.)

That episode tells us that an element in American foreign policy also fell when President Suharto resigned last week. He was one more in a string of dictators who were admired by U.S. governments but rejected, in the end, by their own people.

Mr. Kissinger was most closely identified with the policy: the idea that we should support authoritarian rulers because they could assure stability. Thus Mr. Kissinger smiled on the Shah of Iran, Augusto Pinochet of Chile, Yahya Khan of Pakistan and the like.

But it has turned out that tyranny does not assure stability. Democracy does. Suharto lasted a very long time compared with other tyrants, 32 years. But eventually resentment of his kleptocracy -- the corrupt enrichment of his children and other relatives -- boiled over.

Suharto ruled by fear, as tyrants always do. Anyone who looked like a potential opponent was imprisoned or brutalized into silence. [...]

Protests continued even after troops made the mistake, fatal for Suharto, of firing on an unarmed crowd.

The events in Indonesia have also buried a theoretical justification of strongman rule. That is the notion -- invented by Lee Kuan Yew, the longtime ruler of Singapore -- that Asians prefer order to freedom, and that such "Asian values" underlie the region's decade of rapid economic growth.

The economic miracle has come to an end in the Asian financial crisis. And political change, first in Thailand and South Korea, now in Indonesia, has shown that Asians do not really prefer to live under authoritarian regimes. They want a voice, and they want freedom.

[...]

The larger implications of Indonesian events are for China. Its Communist rulers have maintained stability by rapid economic growth and tight political control. Indonesia shows the limits of that formula. Continuing stability will surely depend on the introduction of democracy in China, however gradually.

There is also a lesson for the United States. Right up to the end, the U.S. Defense Department was training Indonesian units that specialize in the torture and "disappearance" of dissidents. Congress banned American training of Indonesian forces in 1992, but it went on secretly until a victim of torture escaped and told his story this month, shaming the Pentagon into cutting off the program.

In the world as it is, the United States cannot deal only with nice guys. We need good relations with some undemocratic governments. But we do not have to condone savagery, much less assist it.

The International Institute for Strategic Studies, known as the IISS and located at 23 Tavistock Street in London, was formed in 1958 as a result of decisions made at Bilderberg '57. E. H. van der Beugel, who chaired Bilderberg after the death of Retinger (l'eminence grise) in 1960, later became president of the IISS. Bertram Christoph, representative to Bilderberg for Germany and Bilderberg attendant in '95, '96, and '98, is a former director of the IISS.

An Altavista search for ``Bilderberg'' limited to host:*.eth.ch (the common domain of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) returns zero hits. This level of systematic blackout is quite routine with Bilderberg.

Another top-tier think tank associated closely with the international councils (now, with Bilderberg) is the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University. Its current chairman is James Wolfensohn, an important inner circle Bilderberger.
 

ABOUT THE INSTITUTE

The Institute for Advanced Study is an independent, private institution dedicated entirely to the encouragement, support and patronage of learning through fundamental research and definitive scholarship across a wide range of fields. It was founded in 1930 by Louis Bamberger and Caroline Bamberger Fuld as a center where intellectual inquiry can be carried out in the most favorable circumstances. Over the past sixty-five years the Institute has been home to some of the most highly regarded thinkers of the twentieth century, drawing promising young postdocs and accomplished senior scholars from around the world to its New Jersey campus.

More than a dozen Nobel Laureates have been Institute Faculty or Members, and many more are winners of the Wolf or MacArthur prizes or the Fields Medal. Most of the Faculty are members of the National Academy of Sciences or the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

The Institute has no formal curriculum, degree programs, schedule of courses, laboratories, or other experimental facilities. It is committed to exploring the most fundamental areas of knowledge, areas where there is little expectation of immediate outcomes or striking applications--nonetheless, the long-term impact of Institute research has sometimes been dramatic. No contracted or directed research is done at the Institute, and it receives no income from tuition or fees. Resources for operations come from endowment income, grants from private foundations and government agencies, and gifts from corporations and individuals. It has no formal links to other educational institutions, but since its founding the Institute has enjoyed close, collaborative ties with Princeton University and other nearby institutions.

Located on an idyllic campus on Olden Lane in the southwestern part of Princeton Township, the Institute's facilities include several academic buildings, two libraries, a dining hall, an auditorium, and housing for Members.

The main telephone number for the Institute is (609) 734-8000. Our mailing address is: Institute for Advanced Study, Olden Lane, Princeton, NJ 08540-0631. You may contact the Institute's Public Affairs Officer, Georgia Whidden, at (609) 734-8239. An e-mail address for each School's Administrative Officer is provided on this site on the pages for each of the Institute's four Schools.

JAMES D. WOLFENSOHN became the ninth President of the World Bank on June 1, 1995. A member of the Institute for Advanced Study's Board of Trustees since 1978 and its Chairman since 1986, Mr. Wolfensohn had been President and C.E.O. of his own investment banking firm, James D. Wolfensohn, Inc., for the last fourteen years.

Since Mr. Wolfensohn assumed the World Bank's presidency, he has spent much of his time traveling throughout the world to see first-hand the Bank's operations. He has been to Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, Australia,East Asia, and the Middle East, meeting with government leaders, representatives of business, labor, non-governmental organizations, church groups, the media, students, and teachers. Mr. Wolfensohn believes that it is critical to form his own view of what the World Bank has done in the past and will do in the future. During an interview with The Washington Post, he said, "I'll be walking the streets, smelling it myself. I can't get that from listening to commentary in Washington."
This hands-on approach is typical for Mr. Wolfensohn. He served as a Royal Australian Air Force Flying Officer, and in 1956 was a member of the Australian Olympic Fencing Team. He holds B.A. and LL.B. degrees from the University of Sydney and was an attorney with an Australian law firm before attending the Harvard Graduate School of Business from which he received his M.B.A. A lover and patron of the arts, he has been Chairman of the Board of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts since 1990, and earlier he was Chair of the Board of Carnegie Hall. Mr. Wolfensohn is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Director Phillip Griffiths said recently that he and all in the Institute community are delighted that, despite the demanding schedule Mr. Wolfensohn will face as President of the World Bank, he will be able to continue his commitment to the Institute and his chairmanship of the Board.

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES

JAMES D. WOLFENSOHN (Chairman)
President, The World Bank
Washington, DC

LEON LEVY (Vice Chairman)
Partner, Odyssey Partners, L.P.
New York, New York

JAMES G. ARTHUR
University Professor, Department of Mathematics
University of Toronto
Toronto, Canada

RICHARD B. BLACK
President, Oak Technology, Inc.
Sunnyvale, California

MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG
President and Founder, Bloomberg Financial Markets
New York, New York

MARTIN A. CHOOLJIAN
President, CH Capital Corporation
Princeton, New Jersey

ANNE d'HARNONCOURT
The George D. Widener Director and CEO, Philadelphia Museum of Art
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

MARIO DRAGHI
Director General of the Treasury, Ministry of the Italian Treasury
Rome, Italy

JEAN BETHKE ELSHTAIN
Laura Spelman Rockefeller Professor of Social and Political Ethics
The University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois

VARTAN GREGORIAN
President, Carnegie Corporation
New York, New York

PHILLIP A. GRIFFITHS
Director, Institute for Advanced Study
Princeton, New Jersey

AGNES GUND
President, The Museum of Modern Art
New York, New York

TORU HASHIMOTO
Chairman of the Board, The Fuji Bank, Limited
Tokyo, Japan

JON M. HUNTSMAN, Jr.
Vice Chairman, Huntsman
Salt Lake City, Utah

PETER R. KANN
Publisher and Chairman, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
New York, New York

HELENE L. KAPLAN
Of Counsel, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
New York, New York

IMMANUEL KOHN
Senior Partner and Chairman of the Executive Committee, Cahill Gordon & Reindel
New York, New York

MARIE-JOSEE KRAVIS
Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, Inc.
New York, New York

MARTIN L. LEIBOWITZ
Vice Chairman and Chief Investment Officer, TIAA-CREF
New York, New York

DAVID F. MARQUARDT
Managing Partner, August Capital
Menlo Park, California

ROBERT B. MENSCHEL
Limited Partner, Goldman Sachs & Company
New York, New York

NATHAN P. MYHRVOLD
Chief Technology Officer, Microsoft Corporation
Redmond, Washington

MARTIN J. REES
Royal Society Research Professor, Institute of Astronomy
University of Cambridge
Cambridge, England

JAMES J. SCHIRO
Chairman, Price Waterhouse LLP
New York, New York

RONALDO H. SCHMITZ
Member of the Board of Managing Directors, Deutsche Bank AG
Frankfurt, Germany

RUTH J. SIMMONS
President, Smith College
Northampton, Massachusetts

CHARLES SIMONYI
Chief Architect, Microsoft Corporation
Redmond, Washington

MICHEL L. VAILLAUD
New York, New York

LADISLAUS VON HOFFMANN
President, Omicron Investments, Inc.
Washington, DC

BRIAN F. WRUBLE
Partner, Odyssey Partners, L.P.
New York, New York

MORTIMER B. ZUCKERMAN
Chairman and Editor-in-Chief, U.S. News and World Report
New York, New York
 
 

TRUSTEES EMERITI

CHARLES L. BROWN   v   THEODORE L. CROSS
JOSEPH L. DOOB   v   SIDNEY D. DRELL   v   WILFRIED GUTH
RALPH E. HANSMANN   v   HAMISH MAXWELL   v   MARTIN E. SEGAL
DONALD B. STRAUS   v   FRANK E. TAPLIN, Jr.

PRESENT AND PAST DIRECTORS

ABRAHAM FLEXNER (1930-1939)   v   FRANK AYDELOTTE (1939-1947)
J. ROBERT OPPENHEIMER (1947-1966)   v   CARL KAYSEN (1966-1976)
HARRY WOOLF (1976-1987)   v   MARVIN L. GOLDBERGER (1987-1991)
PHILLIP A. GRIFFITHS (1991- )

PRESENT AND PAST FACULTY

STEPHEN L. ADLER  v   JAMES W. ALEXANDER   v   ANDREW E. Z. ALFOLDI
MICHAEL F. ATIYAH   v   JOHN N. BAHCALL
ARNE K. A. BEURLING   v   ENRICO BOMBIERI   v   ARMAND BOREL
JEAN BOURGAIN   v   GLEN W. BOWERSOCK
LUIS A. CAFFARELLI   v   HAROLD F. CHERNISS   v   MARSHALL CLAGETT
GILES CONSTABLE   v   PATRICIA CRONE
ROGER F. DASHEN   v   PIERRE DELIGNE   v   FREEMAN J. DYSON
EDWARD M. EARLE   v   ALBERT EINSTEIN
JOHN H. ELLIOTT   v   CLIFFORD GEERTZ   v   FELIX GILBERT
JAMES F. GILLIAM   v   KURT GöDEL
HETTY GOLDMAN   v   OLEG GRABAR   v   CHRISTIAN HABICHT
HARISH-CHANDRA   v   ERNST HERZFELD
ALBERT O. HIRSCHMAN  v   LARS V. HöRMANDER   v   PIET HUT
ERNST H. KANTOROWICZ   v   GEORGE F. KENNAN
ROBERT P. LANGLANDS   v   IRVING LAVIN   v   T. D. LEE
ELIAS A. LOWE   v   ROBERT D. MacPHERSON
JACK F. MATLOCK, Jr.   v   MILLARD MEISS   v   BENJAMIN D. MERITT
JOHN W. MILNOR v    DAVID MITRANY
DEANE MONTGOMERY   v   MARSTON MORSE   v   ABRAHAM PAIS
ERWIN PANOFSKY   v   PETER PARET
TULLIO E. REGGE   v   WINFIELD W. RIEFLER   v   MARSHALL N. ROSENBLUTH
JOAN WALLACH SCOTT   v   NATHAN SEIBERG
ATLE SELBERG   v   KENNETH M. SETTON   v   CARL L. SIEGEL
THOMAS SPENCER   v   WALTER W. STEWART
BENGT G. D. STRöMGREN   v   HOMER A. THOMPSON   v   OSWALD VEBLEN
HEINRICH VON STADEN   v   JOHN VON NEUMANN
MICHAEL WALZER v   ROBERT B. WARREN   v   ANDRé WEIL
HERMANN WEYL v    MORTON WHITE
HASSLER WHITNEY   v   FRANK WILCZEK   v   EDWARD WITTEN
ERNEST LLEWELLYN WOODWARD   v   C. N. YANG   v   SHING-TUNG YAU

from the Sacramento Bee, 1999-Aug-2, by Suzanne Bohan:

Movers, shakers from politics, business go Bohemian:
Annual Sonoma fete draws Bushes, Kissinger, Powell, Gingrich

MONTE RIO -- The Bohemian Club's Annual Summer Encampment came to a close here Sunday, ending a two-week retreat for the rich and powerful that President Herbert Hoover once called "the greatest men's party on Earth." The club's famed annual gathering has been held for more than 100 years at the 2,700-acre Bohemian Grove in Monte Rio, about 70 miles north of San Francisco in Sonoma County. This year's event drew in notables such as former President George Bush, Texas Gov. George W. Bush, Henry Kissinger, retired Gen. Colin Powell, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Dow Chemical Chairman Frank Popoff, as well as actor Danny Glover. The men gather to celebrate what they call "the spirit of Bohemia," said Peter Phillips, a Sonoma State University sociology professor who wrote his doctoral dissertation on the Bohemian Club. "This is a place men can go and hang out with people who are similar to them," he said. The annual gathering near the Russian River, which was first held in 1879, starts with the "Cremation of Care" ritual, in which the club's mascot is burned in effigy, symbolizing a freedom from care. Members also perform several plays, and gourmet food and expensive wine are plentiful. While the club was formed in 1872 by a group of San Francisco journalists, the male-only club now bars journalists from membership to protect the group's privacy. Membership is coveted, and people routinely wait 10 or 15 years before gaining admittance. There are currently about 2,700 members. The club has drawn criticism for years because of its emphasis on privacy. What particularly concerns Phillips and others are the "Lakeside Talks" held during the summer retreat. This year, Powell was expected to deliver a talk titled "America's Promise Leading Armies and Leading Kids," and Popoff, of Dow Chemical, was to give a speech called "Environmental Journey." "These are often public policy speeches," said Mary Moore, with Bohemian Grove Action Network, a protest group. "And the American public is not privy to it." No one from the club returned several calls from The Bee. Bohemian Grove Action Network has periodically held demonstrations at the grove, although none were held this year. The point of the protests, Moore said, has been "to let the American public know that what they've learned in civics isn't the full story on how decision-making . . . is made in this country." The Bohemian Club, she said, "is one of the most elite organizations on the planet." When the group sponsors public policy talks that are held without public scrutiny, "the average American feels left out of the process," she said. Phillips echoes Moore's objections to the off-the-record nature of the Lakeside Talks. "These are extremely powerful people and private discussions on policy issues that affect us certainly go against democratic principles," he said. "There's no reason that those speeches they're giving couldn't be transcribed and made public. They have a responsibility to be open about it."
 

Inside Bohemian Grove: The Story People Magazine Won't Let You Read

 

 
 
 
 
 

Bohemian Grove, a secluded campground in California's Sonoma County, is the site of an annual two-week gathering of a highly select, all-male club, whose members have included every Republican president since Calvin Coolidge. Current participants include George Bush, Henry Kissinger, James Baker and David Rockefeller -- a virtual who's who of the most powerful men in business and government.

 Few journalists have gotten into the Grove and been allowed to tell the tale (one exception is Philip Weiss, whose 11/89 Spy piece provides the most detailed inside account), and members maintain that the goings-on there are not newsworthy events, merely private fun. In fact, official business is conducted there: Policy speeches are regularly made by members and guests, and the club privately boasts that the Manhattan Project was conceived on its grounds.

 Given the veil of secrecy that surrounds the Bohemian "encampment," a reporter needs to enter the grounds covertly in order to get a full portrait. Mathisonentered the grounds three times July 1991, aided by activists from the Bohemian Grove Action Network.
 

Who leads CSIS?

CSIS receives guidance and direction from several groups that oversee its operations

Board of Trustees

The Board of trustees is composed of distinguished U.S. business and academic leaders.

Chairman

Sam Nunn, former U.S. Senator

Vice Chairman and Cofounder

President & CEO, The Center for the Study of the Presidency

Chairman, Executive Committee

Anne Armstrong*
Former Ambassador to Great Britain

President and CEO
 

Members

Lester M. Alberthal, Jr.
Betty Beene
Reginald K. Brack, Jr.
William E. Brock
Harold Brown
Zbigniew Brzezinski
Robert A. Day
Michael P. Galvin*
Joseph T. Gorman
Carla A. Hills
Ray L. Hunt
James A. Kelly
Henry A. Kissinger
Donald B. Marron
Homer A. Neal
John E. Pepper
William J. Perry
Charles A. Sanders
John C. Sawhill
James R. Schlesinger
William A. Schreyer*
Brent Scowcroft
Murray Weidenbaum
Frederick Whittemore
R. James Woolsey
Amos A. Jordan, Emeritus
Leonard H. Marks, Emeritus
Robert S. Strauss, Emeritus
 

Advisory Board

The Advisory Board is composed of both public and private sector policymakers, including 14 members of Congress. The Board is cochaired by Zbigniew Brzezinski and Carla Hills.

Corporate Officers

 Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer
, Managing Director for Domestic and International Issues
, Senior Vice President for International Security Affairs
 Senior Vice President and Director of Studies
 Vice President for International Finance and Economic Policy
Judy L. Harbaugh, Vice President for Development
M. Jon Vondracek, Vice President for External Relations
Brenda Palmer, Vice President for Finance and Administration

Counselors

CSIS Counselors are world-class strategists who have formerly held top-level government posts. They bring to the Center an extensive reserve of expertise and experience.

William E. Brock
Harold Brown
Zbigniew Brzezinski
Henry A. Kissinger
Mack McLarty
Sam Nunn
James R. Schlesinger

Advisers

Senior advisers and associates are an integral part of the CSIS family. They provide substantive counsel and input on the full range of Center projects.

Distinguished Senior Scholars

Fred C. Ikl? (in residence)
Bernard Lewis (Princeton University)

Senior Advisers

J. Carter Beese
Wayne Berman
M. Stanton H. Burnett
Derek H. Burney
Richard R. Burt
William Clark, Jr.
Arnaud de Borchgrave
Diana Lady Dougan
Ernest Graves
Max M. Kampelman
Robert H. Kupperman
David McCurdy
Robert G. Neumann
Stephen J. Solarz
The Duke of Westminster

Distinguished Senior Adviser

William J. Crowe, Jr.

What is CSIS?

The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) is a public policy research institution dedicated to analysis and policy impact. CSIS is the only institution of its kind that maintains resident experts on all the world's major geographical regions. It also covers key functional areas, such as international finance, U.S. domestic and economic policy, and U.S. foreign policy and national security issues.

For more than three decades, the strategic approach of CSIS has emphasized long-range, anticipatory, and integrated thinking on a wide range of policy issues.

The Center's staff of 80 research specialists, 80 support staff, and 70 interns, is committed to generating strategic analysis, analyzing policy options, exploring contingencies, and making recommendations.

Founded in 1962 and located in Washington, D.C., CSIS is a private, tax-exempt institution. Its research is non-partisan and non-proprietary. On January 1, 1999, Sam Nunn assumed the position of chairman of the CSIS Board of Trustees, formerly held by Anne Armstrong, assumed the presidency as  became the CSIS chancellor.

The Center's gateway to Asia is the Honolulu-based  It is the hub of a network of 20 research institutes around the Pacific Rim. Forum programs encompass current and emerging political, security, economic, and business issues. Brent Scowcroft chairs its Board of Governors and  is its president.

What is the CSIS Mission?

The mission of CSIS is policy impact.

Its goal is to inform and shape selected policy decisions in government and the private sector to meet the increasingly complex and difficult challenges that leaders will confront in the next century.

How does CSIS implement this mission?

CSIS achieves this mission in three ways:

By generating strategic analysis

CSIS is a source of scholarly analysis on international public policy issues, such as the following:

The Seven Revolutions Project, which identifies and analyzes the issues that leaders will face in the year 2020. This project assesses trends in seven areas of revolutionary change: demography, environment, technology, knowledge, economics and finance, conflict, and society and politics. Trends within these Seven Revolutions, analysis of links among those revolutions, and the Center's contingency thinking have been woven together into a multimedia presentation that has been shown around the world.

Global Trends 2002 brings together CSIS experts to examine major world trends over the next decade and their implications for a number of key countries. Designed to offer useful, near-term insights to decision makers in business and government, Global Trends 2002 differs from Seven Revolutions in three primary ways: its shorter time frame, its more in-depth research and analysis, and its use of specific contingency analyses and country projections.

Middle East Dynamic Net Assessment examines the strategic environment in the Middle East, taking in to account the most recent political and military developments in the region, and explores the implication s for regional security.

By convening policymakers and other influential parties

CSIS has a long-standing reputation for bringing together leaders from government, the private sector, and academia from around the world. Examples include:

Global Organized Crime examines the implications of this burgeoning threat to global stability and information technology security from narcotics trafficking, financial crime, Russian and Asian organized crime, terrorism, and the nuclear black market. The project is chaired by Judge William Webster.

The Global Information Infrastructure Commission is designed to foster private sector leadership and private-public sector cooperation in the development of information networks and services. The 40 commissioners include CEOs of major international corporations, the World Bank, and government representatives. Commission cochairs are Minoru Makihara (CEO of Mitsubishi), Les Alberthal (chairman and CEO of EDS) and Volker Jung (executive vice-president and member of the managing board of Siemens AG).

The American-Ukrainian Advisory Committee identifies opportunities for closer political and economic cooperation between the two countries. The committee makes concrete recommendations at the highest political level to the two governments to assist Ukraine in consolidating its independence and in undertaking the transition to a market economy. The chairman of the group is CSIS counselor Zbigniew Brzezinski.

By building structures for policy action

CSIS mobilizes government and private-sector leaders in action commissions and other high-level groups and then moves policymakers to take concrete actions.

These initiatives are designed to achieve specific, well-defined results?such as replacing the current anti-savings, anti-investment tax code in the United States and increasing foreign investment flows to economies in transition.

Specifically, CSIS action commissions and other high-level groups have been formed in Poland and with the MERCOSUR countries to explore concrete ways of promoting foreign investment, encouraging private enterprise, and expanding economic, financial, and political ties with the Unites States. At home, CSIS has had an important policy impact on fiscal, tax, health care, and capital market reform as a result of its Strengthening of America Commission and its follow-up effort, the National Campaign to Strengthen America.
 

How is CSIS Organized?

Membership Groups

The Houston and Dallas Roundtables bring together local business leaders and CSIS experts to discuss current international political and economic trends.

The Washington Roundtable meets three to four times a year with members of Congress, executive branch officials, and other Washington experts to discuss pressing policy issues of the day.

The International Councillors: CSIS Counselor Henry Kissinger chairs the semiannual meetings of this group of international business leaders who discuss the implications of the changing economic and strategic environment.

The International Research Council: The Council is a group of world renowned scholars who oversee the development and execution of the Center's research agenda. Cochairs are Walter Laqueur and Murray Weidenbaum.

The 2020 Committee is a network of younger members of the CSIS community who are also leaders in business and government. Established a the time of the Center's 30th anniversary in 1993, the 2020 Committee was given a charter to oversee and advise CSIS as it looks ahead toward the next 30 years. Michael Galvin is the committee's chairman.

 

Who funds CSIS?

Contributions from more than 300 corporations, foundations, and individuals constitute 85% of the revenues required to meet the Center's budget, which in 1997 was $17 million. The remaining funds come from endowment income, government contracts, and publication sales.

The purview of The Washington Quarterly is broad, ranging across the full set of political, economics, and security issues related to the international engagement of the United States. But its focus is policy and the way in which analysis of international events must be translated into policy choices and actions. Its contributors are professionally, politically, and geographically diverse [We got Marxists! We got Fabians! We got fascists! We got it aaaaalll! -Ed.]. TWQ has subscribers in more than 50 countries and is available in bookstores and on newstands.

 

GUEST EDITORIALS

__________________________
Pages 7-9

The Other Asian Crisis
By Jacob Park

The attention lavished on the Asian financial crisis is warranted, but is helping to obscure another, and ultimately more threatening, danger: a regional ecological disaster.

__________________________
Pages 11-15

Protecting Democracy Abroad: Bringing Despots to Justice
By Morton H. Halperin [a strident Marxist -Ed.] and Kristen Lomasney

It's time for the next logical step in human rights law. As it does with war criminals, the world community should prosecute individuals for human rights violations.

__________________________
Pages 17-23

Dealing with the Backwoods: New Challenges for the Transatlantic Relationship
By Volker Stanzel

America, the sole superpower, has been throwing its weight around, and America's allies are looking for ways to respond. These reactions could become dangerous fissures within U.S. alliances.

---

ROUNDTABLE

Pages 27-35

China into the Abyss?

In our second roundtable, top China hands discuss whether the Asian financial crisis is about to suck China in--or whether Beijing can weather the storm.

---

Challenges in the Global Economy

__________________________
Pages 39-58

Global Competitiveness Revisted
By Rosabeth Moss Kanter

One of the world's leading business and finance experts surveys the emerging interdependencies of global trade and economics.

__________________________
Pages 59-82

Global Competition and the Changing Role of the American Corporation
By Marina v.N. Whitman

The character of the modern American corporation is changing along with the world economy.

__________________________
Pages 83-100

Phone Calls and Fax Machines: The Limits to Globalization
By Hugh Louch, Eszter Hargittai, and Miguel Angel Centeno

The grand rhetoric about "global communications" begins to look a little flimsy when compared to the real facts about international telephone calling. It has not exploded in recent years, and it has not become truly global.

__________________________
Pages 101-111

The IMF and World Bank: Time to Merge
By James B. Burnham

These two global economic behemoths, founded for very different purposes, are for all intents and purposes indistinguishable--and their artificial separation is inefficient.

__________________________
Pages 113-122

Poor Rich Venezuela: Miracle in Reverse
By Georgie Anne Geyer

Expectations--and uncertainty--are running at a fever pitch for Venezuela's new president. Journalist Georgie Anne Geyer offers the fascinating results of an extended, revealing interview with the man who could personify a new trend in Latin American politics.

---

Security Issues

__________________________
Pages 125-138

Open NATO's Door Carefully
By Hans Binnendijk and Richard L. Kugler

Three staunch advocates of NATO expansion warn that the first round--embracing Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic--should remain the last round for some time to come.

__________________________
Pages 139-147

The Nonproliferation of States: A Reply to Pascal Boniface
By Scott Pegg

In a previous issue of TWQ, Pascal Boniface argued persuasively that a "proliferation of states" constitutes one of the next big threats to global stability. Absolutely not, replies Pegg: no such trend toward global fragmentation exists, and none will emerge.

---

Global Reportage: Germany, South Africa, Cyprus, and Japan

__________________________
Pages 151-168

Letter from Magdeburg
By G. Pascal Zachary

If you think Germany is one country, you're wrong. In many ways, it's still two--and its eastern half is plagued with social and economic problems that don't seem to be getting better.

__________________________
Pages 169-181

Why Killers Should Go Free: Lessons from South Africa
By David Goodman

South Africa's much-heralded Truth and Reconciliation Commission has endured a few years of bad press, with skeptics inside the country and around the world wondering why it was ever formed. Goodman tells us why the Commission made a lot of sense after all.

__________________________
Pages 183-193

Conciliation in Cyprus?
By Christopher de Bellaigue

Our intrepid contributing correspondent in Ankara travels to Greece and both parts of divided Cyprus to find an alarming buildup of military hardware on the island, sabre-rattling from both Athens and Ankara, and general intransigence toward a solution.

__________________________
Pages 195-212

Japan: The Enigma of American Power
By Patrick Smith

Japan, Smith has long been reminding Americans, is a different country than we have assumed. It is now in the process of reclaiming its unique identity. As it does so, relations with the United States are likely to become rocky.

---

U.S. Politics

__________________________
Pages 215-230

Bridging the Gap
By Alice Wang

Contributing correspondent Alice Wang investigates the likely future of what some view as the Republican Party's last, best hope for real majority status--the "compassionate conservative" movement.

__________________________
Pages 231-237

Looking Ahead to 2000
By Charles E. Cook Jr.
 
 

FACULTY JOHNS HOPKINS PAUL H. NITZE SCHOOL OF ADVANCED INTERNATIONAL STUDIES (SAIS)

CFR Paul Nitze SAIS founding father, has been diplomat-in-residence at SAIS since retiring from the State Department on April 30, 1989.

CFR member Paul Wolfowitz, Ph.D. is SAIS Chairman and Dean

CFR Zbigniew Brzezinski is SAIS Robert E. Osgood Professor of American Foreign Policy

CFR Fouad Ajami (Majid Khadduri Professor and Director of Middle East Studies)

CFR member A. Doak Barnett (Professor emeritus of Chinese Studies),

CFR member Frederick Brown (Fellow, Foreign Policy Institute and Adjunct Professor Southeast Asian Studies Program),

CFR member Charles Doran (Andrew W. Mellon Professor of International Relations and Director of Canadian Studies),

CFR member Isaiah Frank (William L. Clayton Professor of International Economics),

CFR member Francis Fukuyama (Director of the SAIS Telecommunications Project and Fellow, Foreign Policy Institute),

CFR member Charles Gati (Fellow, Foreign Policy Institute)

CFR member Christian Herter (Professorial Lecturer in International Relations)

CFR member David M. Lampton, Ph.D.(George and Sadie Hyman Professor of China Studies and Director of China Studies)

CFR member Michael Mandelbaum (Christian A. Herter Professor and Director of American Foreign Policy)

CFR member Steven Muller (Fellow, Foreign Policy Institute)

CFR member Donald Oberdorfer (Journalist-in-Residence, Foreign Policy Institute)

CFR member George Packard (Edwin O. Reischauer Professor and Director of the Reischauer Center for East Asian Studies)

CFR member Riordan Roett (The Sarita and Don Johnston Professor and Director of Latin American Studies)

CFR member Hederick Smith (Editor-in-Residence, Foreign Policy Institute)

CFR member S. Frederick Starr (Chairman, Central Asia Institute)

CFR member I. William Zartman (Jacob Blaustein Professor of International Organizations and Conflict Resolution and Director of African Studies).

The two CFR Fellows on the SAIS faculty are Andrew J. Bacevich and Wilford L. Kohl.

To a degree, the Club of Rome epitomizes the world government movement's general blandness, mediocrity, and mealymouthed words that jail. This is certainly true for such Club initiatives as the RIO Project ("Reshaping the International Order"). , J. Orlin Grabbe says

The liberal's preoccupation with social "problems" and the Club of Rome's obsession with entropy are essentially expressions of the Second School view. Change, the fundamental motion of the universe, is bad.

Grabbe defines the Second School as those who believe that "Chaos is a Result of Breaking Laws" - a belief diametrically opposed to natural law, hence antithetical to  hence quite positively evil. That said, Grabbe has jumped the gun, as becomes clear upon a reading of Ilya Prigogine's brief paper on uncertainty, included above.

I find myself actually liking the Club, from what I know of them. Many of the complaints lodged against the Club could just as easily be lodged against myself - for example, general indictment of the methods of systems analysis (I am, of course, a systematician). One of the Club's founders was a real WWII hero, a partisan jailed by the Italian fascists. The Club seems to be populated, at its highest level, by people who are innocent of the many horrors orchestrated by elites in other superficially similar organizations of this century. After extensive exposure to frightening organizations such as Bilderberg, the Club seems disarmingly sincere and admitting of fallibility. The Club is mentioned by others in ominous terms, but this seems thoroughly uncalled for. Still, many of these Clubbers are the same sort of people who embark on well-meaning programs in the United Nations that often involve calamatous unintended consequences.

The Club of Rome maintains (or rather, forgets to maintain) a web site at which seems a bit buggy and is littered with grammatical and lexical errors. The Club's Executive Committee has a mailbox,  I have compiled the critical portions of their site into an , which is 90K in length. Here are some key excerpts:

A novelist would probably reject the contacts and encounters that led up to the creation of the Club of Rome as too improbable for a good story. An Italian industrialist who has spent much of his working life in China and Latin America meets, via a Russian (although this is at the height of the Cold War), a top international scientific civil servant, Scots by birth and now living in Paris. They find they share similar concerns, become friends, decide to draw others (American, Austrian, British, Danish, French) into their discussions. Unfortunately, the first proper meeting of this group, in Rome in Spring 1968, is a total flop but a handful of die-hards carry on, and within a few years millions of people all round the world are talking about their ideas.

The Club of Rome is a center of research and a think tank, it is also a center of action, of innovation and initiative. The Club of Rome, founded in 1968 in Rome, is a group of scientists, economics, businessmen, international high civil servants, Heads of State and former Heads of State from the five continents, who are convinced that the future of humankind is not determined once and for all and that each human being can contribute to the improvement of our societies.

We, the members of the Club of Rome, are one hundred individuals, at present drawn from 52 countries and five continents.

Currently there are 30 National Associations spread across all five continents.

1986:
The Club decided on a deliberate change of emphasis in tackling "the predicament of mankind". While maintaining the distinctively global approach, it chose to focus on particular aspects, sometimes even concentrating on a single major one. Possible topics were then defined by Alexander King in his statement The Club of Rome, Reaffirmation of a Mission. These topics are: governability, peace and disarmament, population growth, human resources, and assessment of the consequences of advances in science and technology.

As the 21st century approaches, there is a growing sense of uncertainty and anxiety. Faced by increasing complexity, dizzying globalisation and a world subject to constant political, economic and social upheavals, human beings today are fearful. We appear to be in the early stages of the formation of a new type of world society.

Nothing escapes this tidal wave that carries all before it. Yet the greatest impact is undoubtedly on human hearts and minds. This why our aim must be essentially normative and action-oriented. We must develop common standards, based on a sense of our shared responsibility towards future generations. The basis of the new order should be an understanding that human initiatives and institutions exist only to serve human needs. Central to it should be values that cannot be imposed from outside but must grow as part of the renewal occurring within every human individual.

The essential mission of the Club of Rome is to act as an international, non-official catalyst of change. This role is prompted by the slowness and inadequacy of governments and their institutions to respond to urgent problems, constrained as they are by structures and policies designed for earlier, simpler times and by relatively short electoral cycles. This, in view of the confrontational nature of much of public and international life, the stifling influence of expanding bureaucracies and the growing complexity of issues, suggests that the voice of independent and concerned people, having access to the corridors of power around the world, should have a valuable contribution to make towards increasing understanding and, at times, jolting the system into action.

The members of the Executive Committe are frequently consulted by decision-makers in international institutions, governments, the business community and civil society; this has always been an important part of our work.

Aware of the importance of the information society, the Club has adopted a policy of world-wide communication, using all the means available, and most recently the Internet with our web site.

However, the Club itself tends normally to adopt a low profile, and the passionate debate sparked by "The Limits to Growth", updated by the authors under the title "Beyond the Limits", has been the only and unexpected exception to this desire to operate discreetly. We believe that we are sometimes more effective when we work behind the scenes.

Alexander King, as the "keeper of the ideology" from the outset, was inspired by the model of the Lunar Society of Birmingham: a group of independent-minded people (such as Wedgwood the potter, James Watt, Priestley the discoverer of oxygen, Erasmus Darwin) who dined together once a month towards the end of the 18th century and discussed the promises and problems offered by contemporary developments in science and industry. The Lunatics, as William Blake called them disparagingly, had no political power or ambitions, but they could see the interconnections between all that was happening around them and the potential for changing the nature of society. No bureaucracy, just thinking and doing.

Eventually the Club did have to draw up some statutes and choose a President (Aurelio Peccei), but that was all. It was decided to limit the membership to 100 because it was feared that larger numbers would become unmanageable and would necessitate a paid secretariat, hence all the usual paraphernalia of finance committees, etc. that they hoped to avoid. So that the Club should be seen to be entirely independent, financial support would not be sought or accepted from governments or industry. For the same reason, there should be no political affiliations or appointments - members appointed to political positions were expected to become sleeping members while in office (this happened, for example, for Okita and Pestel). Otherwise the membership should range as widely as possible, in terms of expertise and geography. A concern with the problematique, and the need to delineate it and understand its nature, was the main requirement for membership, irrespective of political ideology.

The majority ultimately decided that it would take too long and cost too much to develop the Ozbekhan model to the point where it would produce useful results.

Once again, the enterprise might have foundered; but once again, a deus ex machina appeared, this time in the shape of Professor Jay Forrester of MIT, who had been invited to the meeting. For thirty years he had been working on the problem of developing mathematical models that could be applied to complex, dynamic situations such as economic and urban growth. His offer to adapt his well-tried dynamic model to handle global issues was gratefully accepted, and the way ahead suddenly seemed less uncertain. A fortnight later, a group of Club members visited Forrester at MIT and were convinced that the model could be made to work for the kind of global problems which interested the Club. An agreement was signed with a research team at MIT in July 1970, the finance provided by a grant of $200 000 that Pestel had obtained from the Volkswagen Foundation.

The team was made up of 17 researchers from a wide range of disciplines and countries, led by Dennis Meadows. From their base at the Systems Dynamics Group at MIT they assembled vast quantities of data from around the world to feed into the model, focusing on five main variables: investment, population, pollution, natural resources and food. The dynamic model would then examine the interactions among these variables and the trends in the system as a whole over the next 10, 20, 50 years or more if present growth rates were maintained. The global approach was quite deliberate; regional and area studies could come later.

In a remarkably short time, the team produced its report in 1972: The Limits to Growth, written.very readably for a non-specialist audience by Donella Meadows. The response to the book - in all 12 million copies have been sold, translated into 37 languages - showed how many people in every continent were concerned about the predicament of mankind. "The Club of Rome" had begun to make its mark, as its founders had hoped, on the whole world.

Quite wrongly, the Report tended to be perceived as presenting an inescapable scenario for the future, and the Club was assumed to be in favour of zero economic growth. In fact the projection of trends and the analysis of their cross impacts were intended to highlight the risks of a blind pursuit of growth in the industrialised countries, and to induce changes in prevailing attitudes and policies so that the projected consequences should not materialise.

Eduard Pestel was one of those deeply concerned about the undifferentiated global approach adopted in Limits to Growth. As a professional systems analyst (he had established his own Institute for Systems Analysis in Hannover in 1971) he was the obvious person to produce a better one. Accordingly, even before the Meadows Report was published, he and Mihajlo Mesarovic of Case Western Reserve University had begun work on a far more elaborate model (it distinguished ten world regions and involved 200,000 equations compared with 1000 in the Meadows model). The research had the full support of the Club and the final publication, Mankind at the Turning Point, was accepted as an official Report to the Club of Rome in 1974. In addition to providing a more refined regional breakdown, Pestel and Mesarovic had succeeded in integrating social as well as technical data. The Report was less readable than Limits to Growth and did not make the same impact on the general public, but it was well received in Germany and France, in particular.

Peccei persuaded the Austrian Chancellor, Bruno Kreisky, to host a meeting in February 1974 on North-South problems which brought together six other heads of state or government (from Canada, Mexico, the Netherlands, Senegal, Sweden and Switzerland), senior representatives of three others (Algeria, the Republic of Ireland and Pakistan) and ten members of the CoR Executive Committee. Peccei deliberately did not invite any of the major European powers, the USA or the USSR so as to prevent the debate turning into a forum for national or ideological position statements. To encourage the participants to speak freely, they were asked to come without accompanying civil servants and assured that nothing they said would be attributed to them. The two-day private brainstorming meeting ended with a press conference for 300 journalists and the CoR Executive Committee members issued their "Salzburg Statement", which emphasised that the oil crisis was simply part of the whole complex of global problems; the nine recommendations related to many of the issues covered in the NIEO.

Scholars from the First, Second and Third Worlds were invited to participate in the RIO project (Reshaping the International Order), but only Poland and Bulgaria accepted from the Communist bloc. The basic thesis was that the gap between rich and poor countries (with the wealthiest roughly 13 times richer than the poorest) was intolerable and the situation was inherently unstable. What would be required to reduce the gap to 6:1 over 15 to 30 years? (Though still large, this ratio seemed the lowest that could be realistically proposed.) Unlike Limits to Growth the model allowed the developing countries 5% growth per annum, whereas the industrialised countries would have zero or negative growth; all, however, would benefit from more sensible use of energy and other resources and a more equitable distribution of global wealth. The main Report argued that people in the rich countries would have to change their patterns of consumption and accept lower profits, but a dissenting group saw consumption as a symptom rather than a cause of the problems, which stemmed rather from the fundamental power structure.

Another new development was the decision to invite prominent world figures who share the Club's concerns to become Honorary Members. Although their positions may prevent them from taking a public stance, as in the case of the Queen of the Netherlands or the King and Queen of Spain, they can and do give valued moral support. Among the others are former President Gorbachev, former President Richard von Weizs?cker of Germany, the first President of newly democratic Czechoslovakia Vaclav Havel, President Arpad G?ncz of Hungary, President Carlos Menem of Argentina, and the Nobel laureates Ilya Prigogine and Lawrence Klein.

As to the more private face of the Club, the personal diplomacy always practised by members was given new impetus by the gradual thaw in East-West relations after 1985. Two examples are particularly striking. Before the Rejkavik Summit in October 1986, Eduard Pestel and Alexander King sent a memo to both President Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, suggesting that the United States and the USSR might be induced to work together on reducing arms sales to poorer countries - the superpowers would gain politically, if not economically, from such efforts, and they would benefit from the experience of actually working together. The response from the White House was perfunctory, but Gorbachev immediately reacted very positively, and this led to personal contacts between the Club and the Soviet leadership during the crucial period of glasnost and perestroika. Similar contacts made by Adam Schaff in Poland led to the creation there of a National Association of the Club of Rome, providing a meeting ground for members of the Communist Party, the Roman Catholic church and Solidarity.

Following the collapse of communism, National Associations for the Club of Rome were established across Eastern Europe, in Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Georgia, Hungary, Rumania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Ukraine; National Associations already existed in Poland and Russia. Chapters were also created in Latin America (Argentina, Chile, Puerto Rico and Venezuela). Currently there are 30 National Associations spread across all five continents.

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Ricardo Diez Hochleitner,
Bertrand Schneider, Secretary General
Ruth Bamela Engo-Tjega, President of African NGO
Belisario Betancur, ex-President of Colombia
Umberto Colombo, ex Minister of Research and Universities of Italy
Orio Giarini, Secretary General of the Geneva Association
Bohdan Hawrylyshyn, Chairman,Council of Advisors of the Parliament of Ukraine
Alexander King, co-founder of The Club of Rome
Yotaro Kobayashi, President of Fuji Xerox
Eberhard von Koerber, President of ABB Europe
Ruud Lubbers, ex-Prime Minister of the Netherlands
Manfred Max-Neef, Rector, Universidad Australe de Chile
Samuel Nana Sinkam, FAO Director for Congo
Ilya Prigogine, Nobel Laureate, Professor, Universit? Libre of Bruxelles

Scientists See Broad Attack Against Research And Reason

Perceived anti-science sentiments include postmodernism, creationism, and alternative medicine--but those targeted say they are no threat.

A rising tide of "irrationalism" in the United States and Europe is helping to fuel dangerous anti-science sentiments, according to a number of researchers and academics. Proof, they say, can be seen in the increased prominence given to postmodernist science studies in the universities, creationism, and alternative medicine.

They claim that the spread of these and other untestable belief systems in society may destabilize science by skewing science education and diminishing public support for experimental research.

"There is a widespread, powerful, corrosive hostility toward science," declares Paul R. Gross, University Professor of Life Sciences and director of the Center for Advanced Studies at the University of Virginia. "It's really toward scientists, by the way, but the confusion is universally made between scientists as persons and the body of knowledge that survives called science."

Postmodernist members of those disciplines engaged in science studies--sociologists, anthropologists, and historians, for example--counter that their critiques are, for the most part, friendly efforts to understand and not to undermine science and scientists. And some alternative medicine proponents say they welcome the role science plays in evaluating therapies.

Last month in New York, about 200 scientists and scholars concerned about the perceived growth in anti-science thinking met to hear speakers describe the problem and map out tactics to counter it. Several attendees from the groups being criticized at the meeting took issue with what they felt was the vitriolic tone of many of the speakers.

With mathematician Norman Levitt from Rutgers University, Gross cochaired the May 31-June 2 conference, sponsored by the New York Academy of Sciences and called "The Flight From Science And Reason." Gross and Levitt are coauthors of the book Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994), which has become one of the clarion calls for those worried about anti- science.

Battling Postmodernism

The meeting's primary critical focus was postmodernism, a powerful intellectual shift in many humanities disciplines over the past few decades. Postmodernism has many facets--social constructivism and poststructuralism among them--but one of its central notions is that humans cannot perceive the natural world directly. Instead, perceptions must pass through such filters as language and culture, which define our understanding of the world.

It is this idea that angers some experimental scientists, who maintain that science is distinguished by its reliance on empirical data, by the fact that others can replicate its experiments, and by its predictive capability.

"All scientists have a fundamental faith--and it is a faith--that there is a real world out there that has rules that can be understood by rational means," explains David L. Goodstein, vice provost and a professor of physics and applied physics at the California Institute of Technology. "That's what science is all about, and all scientists must believe that. Those who say science is socially constructed, it's not written in nature, it's whatever the scientists and their masters want it to be--that's crackpot. That's where I draw the line."

Individuals pursuing constructivist lines of thinking suggest that differing worldviews serve different purposes for social and natural scientists.

"If I, as an anthropologist, just pull back from my insistence that we can only know the external world through our language, our culture, I can get along fine with the natural scientist who believes that he's finding out what is truly the case in the natural world," says Emily Martin, a Princeton University anthropology professor. Martin does ethnographic studies with immunologists and is married to a biophysics professor. "In order for natural scientists to carry on their work, to do what they do on a daily basis, to carry out experiments, and so on, they have to believe that they are finding out about the natural world. The only effect it would have on them if they shifted their worldview would be that they couldn't carry out their science anymore.

"It's part of the worldview of a natural scientist that the real world actually exists and they are actually finding out about it. Part of the worldview of an anthropologist is that the real world exists, but I can only know about it through my own language, my own culture, so I never can get at it except through these veils, these lenses, these gauzy filters. If they took away my worldview, I couldn't do my ethnography, either."

Gerald Holton, a professor of physics and the history of science at Harvard University, maintains that irrationality of the type described at the conference and espoused by researchers such as Martin is cyclical, having arisen periodically in modern times at least since the Romantic rebellion at the turn of the 19th century. Holton is the author of Science and Anti-Science (Harvard University Press, 1993).

"William Blake and Johann Wolfgang Goethe were outraged by contemporary science," Holton notes. "They called Newton the Satan, because he wanted a science which is consensual--what is right, what is fact, is only what can be agreed on by many people--whereas they felt what is important is the individual, the experience of yourself, by yourself, not the collectivized view of science that imposes a vision that has to be shared by many."

Facing Fundamentalism

A number of speakers contended that research funding cuts proposed in Congress and religious fundamentalists' inroads into science education are far more serious threats than the internecine academic conflict with postmodernists. Fundamentalists were not represented among the participants at the meeting.

"It's not [the postmodernists'] fault that they're going to be cutting the funds for science, coming with a cleaver at us all," Bogdan Denitch, a City University of New York professor of sociology, told the meeting attendees. "That happens to be people entirely different who don't even know what postmodernism is, nor care about it. That comes from far more powerful forces, ranging from the Christian majority to the good folks who pass laws enforcing creationism as a logical and equal alternative to paleoscience and evolution. Those are the folks, in my opinion, who are at the cutting edge of the assault on rationality and reason in politics."

Some researchers from the disciplines being criticized at the conference found themselves in substantial agreement with the speakers over the role fundamentalists are playing in controlling research funding and educational priorities.

"The things that are endangering science are also endangering the social sciences as well, so that we're all in danger of having National Science Foundation and other funding sources cut back," says Rena Lederman, a professor of anthropology at Princeton and daughter of Nobel-Prize-winning physicist Leon Lederman. "And that's not good for any of us if we're interested in basic research."

Paul Kurtz, a professor, emeritus, of philosophy at the State University of New York, Buffalo, and founder of the Amherst, N.Y.-based Academy of Humanism, drew the meeting participants' attention to a recently released statement from 180 religious leaders opposed to patents on human genes and genetically engineered animals and plants. In published accounts, the reason given by several of the leaders was that humans and animals are creations of God and, as such, should not be patented as inventions.

"It may be that [gene] patenting ought to be overturned," Kurtz said, "but the reasons that are given are what I question."

Opposing Alternative Medicine

Kurtz joined others at the meeting in declaring the rising popularity of alternative medicine as another indication of irrational thought, on a par with the growing number of reported UFO encounters, out-of-body experiences, and relationships with guardian angels. Belief in alternative medicine, however, might have direct human costs, Kurtz warned.

"It's clear that in the area of health there's a major assault on the scientific approach," he stated. "There is a clear and present danger. It's a danger to public health. The National Institutes of Health, for example, has a new section on alternative medicine, which is, perhaps, symptomatic [of this assault]."

While acknowledging that the four-year-old NIH Office of Alternative Medicine (F. Hoke, The Scientist, March 7, 1994, page 1) is likely performing serious, empirical studies of alternative therapies, Paul Gross contends that the money would be better spent on conventional possible treatments: "Most of the claims of miraculous cures from most of the varieties of alternative medicine--not all, but most--are patent nonsense on their face. Studies of placebos are worth doing, but those would be studies of placebos and not a comprehensive, worldwide study of acupuncture, for example, which in my view would be a waste of time." James Gordon is chairman of the Office of Alternative Medicine's advisory council and a clinical professor of psychiatry and community and family medicine at Georgetown University Medical School. Gordon, who did not attend the New York meeting, is also director of the Center for Mind-Body Medicine in Washington, D.C. He uses acupuncture with many of his patients, and declares that there are a number of "very good laboratory science and good clinical studies" in peer- reviewed journals supporting the efficacy of acupuncture. "What I'm struck by," he notes, "is that most of the people who are most vociferous in their attacks don't have a very solid foundation in the area which they're attacking."

Although proponents of alternative medicine were not represented among the speakers, one self-described past-lives psychotherapist rose to challenge the meeting as one-sided at one point and was summarily denounced.

Heated Words

Indeed, some academics from fields that were attacked at the meeting were dismayed at what they felt was a polarizing vehemence on the part of many speakers. Several cited as an example the talk given by Mario Bunge, a professor of philosophy and head of the Foundations and Philosophy of Science Unit at McGill University in Montreal.

"Walk a few steps away from the faculties of science, engineering, and medicine," Bunge suggested. "Walk towards the faculty of arts. Here, you will meet another world, one where falsities and lies are manufactured in industrial quantities. Here, some professors are hired, promoted, or given power for teaching that reason is worthless, empirical evidence unnecessary, objective truth nonexistent, basic science a tool of either capitalists or male domination, and the like. Here, we find people who reject all the knowledge painstakingly acquired over the past 5 million years.

"This fraud has got to be stopped, in the name of intellectual honesty. Let them do whatever they please, but not in schools, because schools are supposed to be places of learning. We should expel these charlatans from the university."

Barry Gross, a professor of philosophy at the City University of New York, made similar assertions: "The sole remedy at our disposal is to quarantine the anti-science brigades and inoculate the rest of the population against them. Scientists will have to devote some of their energy to systematic confrontation with the enemies of science."

Some of the intended targets of such broadsides who attended the meeting say that they see themselves as critics, certainly, but not as the "enemies of science." They suggest that a dialogue between the admittedly different perspectives might be more useful in bridging the gap.

"None of us agrees with everything published in the name of science studies," says Rena Lederman. "There's a lot of internal critique. I don't mean to deny that the academic students of science aren't frequently critical of aspects of science, but I don't take that to be a locus of dangerous anti-science. They're trying to understand how scientists do what they do, how scientists communicate their results, how science ideas are used by laypeople. They are engaged in a detailed analysis of the place of science in American and European culture, an important contribution to knowledge. It's certainly not a sign of some kind of anti-intellectual, purely political, ideological, know-nothing Luddite attack."

"It's a shame, almost a tragedy, that [the meeting speakers'] reaction has taken such an extreme and virulent form, almost hate-mongering, because they do have important things to say," observes Emily Martin.

Several social scientists in the audience complained that, while suffering withering criticism at the hands of several speakers, they were not given a voice at the lectern to respond.

Meeting organizers countered that it was their views that had been excluded from debate in recent years. The burgeoning numbers of postmodern academics who interpret the world as no more than a social construction, they said, have dominated discussion.

"The strong constructivists have been in charge, in control of departments of sociology, anthropology, and, to a very significant extent, history of science nationwide [in the U.S.] and in Western Europe for 15 years," says Paul Gross. "We are the oppressed. We have to find a voice, and so this meeting is our voice."

---

BRAIN DRAIN

The Fall of the American Intelligentsia

Cultural phenomena don't usually sign surrender terms so it's a bit hard to pinpoint when the American intelligentsia collapsed, but the day that 400 historians joined the Clinton defense team will probably do as well as any.

In a statement replete with bad history, lousy law, and childish politics the 400 academics provided intellectual succor to the nation's leading suckee, that felonious fraud in the White House.

Ex cathedra, ex cathedra, ex cathedra onward; into the valley of fin-de-siecle decadence rode the 400. . . It was an act so obsequious in cause and transparent in purpose that only the similarly sycophantic Eleanor Clift could keep a straight face when the matter was discussed on the McLaughlin show.

The ad was the handiwork of Arthur Schlesinger Jr. who has been flailing about for the past few decades seeking a president who will treat him as kindly as did John F. Kennedy.

It was not the first time that Schlesinger has served as prop man for presidential mischief. Back when JFK was getting ready to invade Cuba, the New Republic got wind of the CIA's training of Cuban exiles. Schlesinger was shown an advance copy of the article, which he promptly passed to Kennedy, who in turn asked (successfully) that TNR not print it. The New York Times also withheld a story on the pending invasion, which Schlesinger would later praise as a "patriotic act" although he admitted wondering whether if the "press had behaved irresponsibly, it would not have spared the country a disaster."

Schlesinger was a prototype for that modern phenomenon, the meddlesome Harvard prof seeking manly vigor by helping presidents ravage this country or that -- including sometimes our own. Henry Kissinger and McGeorge Bundy would soon follow. Later, the staff and management of the Harvard Business School would assist at the collapse of the Russian economy even as their colleagues at the Kennedy School were teaching scores of American politicians how to repeal 60 years of social progress.

Of course, gratuitous abuse by the intelligentsia began well before the Bay of Pigs. Compared to those men of the mind involved in the Inquisition, for example, Schlesinger & Co. look pretty respectable. And it certainly hasn't all been Harvard's fault; as LBJ once told an aide, the CIA was filled with boys from Princeton and Yale whose daddies wouldn't let them into the brokerage firm.

The American intelligentsia has repeatedly let the country down. Consider that exemplar for generations of law school students: Oliver Wendell Holmes.

Prospective litigants have all learned Holmes' immortal warning that "the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." Fewer, I suspect, have also learned that these words were uttered in defense of the contemptible Espionage Act and that Holmes himself was among those upholding Eugene Debs' sentence of ten years in prison for saying such things as "the master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles."

And as early as the turn of the century, Julian Benda noted in the 1920s, there had been a shift among intellectuals from being a "check on the realism of the people to acting as stimulators of political passions. He described these new intellectuals as being most interested in the possession of concrete advantages and material values, while holding up to scorn the pursuit of the spiritual, the non-practical or the disinterested.

Thus there is no argument here that the capitulation of many intellectuals in the matter of Clinton is novel. What is the unique, however, is the absence of its alternative. There is, for example, nothing even remotely close to the sort of intellectual division that occurred during the Vietnam War in which the Kissingers and Bundys were matched by others -- including those the New York Times in 1970 headlined as "1000 'ESTABLISHMENT' LAWYERS JOIN WAR PROTEST."

In The Twentieth Century: A People's History, Howard Zinn describes a response by some of the intelligentsia stunningly at odds with what we are currently observing:

The poet Robert Lowell, invited to a White House function, refused to come. Arthur Miller, also invited, sent a telegram to the White House: "When the guns boom, the arts die." Singer Ertha Kitt was invited to a luncheon on the White House lawn and shocked all those present by speaking out, in the presence of the President's wife, against the war. .... In Hollywood, local artists erected a 60-foot Tower of Protest on Sunset Boulevard. At the National Book Award ceremonies in New York, fifty authors and publishers walked out on a speech by Vice President Humphrey in a display of anger at his role in the war.

These, remember, were protests against a far more liberal, far more Democratic president than we have today -- a man who had already shepherded through Congress the most progressive social changes since the New Deal. Further, the demon waiting in the wings was not a bland George Bush virtually indistinguishable from the incumbent but Richard Nixon.

Those, however, were different days. Now we have Toni Morrison exculpating Clinton because of his "blackness" and Schlesinger exculpating him because Reagan lied as well.

Today, on the flimsiest and most sophistic of grounds, the intelligentsia has lined up behind the slimiest president in American history. It's just lucky we didn't have to rely upon this craven crowd when we were fighting George Wallace, Strom Thurmond, Carmine DeSapio and Richard Daley. They probably would have lectured us all about party unity.

The Kool-Aid Clintonistas

Nowhere is the problem more visible than among the media intelligentsia. As the impeachment hearings neared, the Kool-Aid Clintonista media dropped all pretense of objectivity and instead loyally chugalugged cups of White House spin at their moral Jonestown. Not since the days when hundreds of their colleagues shilled for the CIA have so many media members betrayed their own craft with such mindless loyalty to terminally corrupted power.

The charge was led by upper class outlets. There was Vogue, which gave Hillary Clinton a free make-over just in time for the House hearings. There was NPR, which still considered Linda Tripp's deception of Monica Lewinsky a greater affair of state than Clinton's deception of his wife, daughter, cabinet members, media, law enforcement officials, Congress, and the grand jury. And there was the New Yorker, which saw its primary function as translating the philosophy of James Carville into Larchmont lockjaw.

The techniques were varied. For Vogue, the retouched photo; for NPR a pseudo-literary deconstruction of the Tripp-Lewinsky tapes; for Newsweek, the neatly destructive headline: "An implausibly optimistic Starr grinds on: The Last True Believer." And for the New Yorker, the convenient pocket quote: "Virtually nothing that Starr may say about Whitewater can matter anymore."

The New Yorker was, on average, the worst of the lot. So shameless was its coverage that its letters column became the only place one could expect to find common sense on Washington affairs.

Inside the book, you had Morrison claiming that "the president is being stolen from us" and Jane Smiley virtually applauding the president for demonstrating in his relationship with Monica a "desire to make a connection with another person .... something I trust."

Joe Klein was so reckless in his support of the Washington establishment that he not only savaged independent counsels but even departmental inspectors general. Klein and his colleagues proved not only extraordinarily soft on crime; they seemed almost to consider it a perk of office or at least a personal lifestyle choice not to be trifled with by mere minions of the law.

This deterioration in the mind of the minds was not just a domestic problem either, as witnessed by a multinational manifesto issued by the likes of Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Desmond Tutu, William Styron, Lauren Becall, Jacques Derrida, Sophia Loren, Carlos Fuentes, Vanessa Redgrave and the ever-faithful Arthur Schlesinger Jr.

Nat Hentoff wrote:

You might think they would be calling for an end to the ethnic cleansing Kosovo or for the immediate relief to the hundreds of thousands of black Christians and animists in the south of Sudan. . . No, these stars are engaged in a much more vital crusade. . . They instruct us that 'a statesman is answerable to public opinion or to the law only for his public acts.'

This infantile and disingenuous recomposition of the law was furthered by Renata Adler in Vanity Fair. Vanity Fair had theretofore distinguished itself in these matters by turning down a blockbuster story with the explanation that it wasn't interested in substance.

Adler wrote what was probably the worst major piece about the Clinton scandals, a tower of twaddle based entirely on an uninformed reading of the Starr report which she called "utterly preposterous . . . inaccurate, mindless, biased, disorganized, unprofessional and corrupt." Adler also tossed off incorrect constitutional legal opinions with such aplomb you would never guess she was only a novelist -- that is until you got to strange sentences like "if Ms. Lewinsky had had a constitutional lawyer the case against her would have been thrown out." It's hard to throw out a case when no one has been charged.

Adler drew vast conclusions from tertiary data with the speed of a tenured member of the John Birch Society, complained about the small type of the Starr Report, and found evil lurking in the fact that the Tripp tapes were not listed in proper numerical order.

It must be said in VF's defense, however, that it also ran a contrary piece by Christopher Hitchens. Like Adler, Hitchens was disinclined to enlighten his readers beyond the matter of sex. Still he did score some good points.

For example, concerning those who said, "Let's get on with the agenda," Hitchens wrote, "Excuse me -- what fucking agenda? Clinton hasn't had a press conference, except when hiding behind embarrassed foreign statesmen, since April, hasn't been to anything much but fund-raisers on the domestic front, and on the international scene has sleepwalked through several major crises."

Still in the end, Hitchens -- like Adler and most other commentators -- was so obsessed with the very prurient interest so frequently ascribed to Starr, that he, too, missed the story.

Which is that the Clinton scandals have truly not been about sex. The Lewinsky saga is but a metaphor, a window out of which one can look upon toxic brown fields of crime and corruption. It has come to the fore in no small part precisely because Clinton and his capos were so effective at the very things of which he is accused -- lying and obstruction of justice -- that the prosecutor was repeatedly blocked in his search for the truth.

Starr, to be sure, has fallen down badly. He has turned his back on evidence of massive drug-dealing in Arkansas, taken a high dive in the Foster death, and mangled the prosecution of Webster Hubbell, the matter of the FBI files, and Travelgate. But neither these nor any personal failings of Linda Tripp alter one iota of the tale's true essence.

The Clinton story is actually about the unprecedented criminal corruption of an administration. It is about a mobbed-up president whose close allies have included over two-score individuals and firms convicted of such crimes as drug trafficking, racketeering, extortion, bribery, tax evasion, kickbacks, embezzlement, fraud, conspiracy, fraudulent loans, illegal gifts, illegal campaign contributions, money laundering, perjury, and obstruction of justice. It is about many more members of his political machine who have taken the Fifth or fled the country.

It is about criminals including drug dealers having direct access to the White House.

It is about a criminal, Webster Hubbell, being appointed to the number 3 spot at the Justice Department.

It is about the President's lifelong association with the Dixie Mafia, including members active in the drug trade.

It is about the abuse of 1,000 FBI files.

It is about the false prosecution of a White House official whose only real crime was occupying a position wanted by a friend of Bill.

It is about illegal foreign campaign contributions and possibly related espionage.

It is about the extraordinary number of people around Clinton who have died under mysterious circumstances.

It is about the repeated abuse of women with whom Clinton has had relations, women who have often been multiple victims: first as abused sexual partners and then as terrorized, bribed, or publicly trashed former partners.

It is about campaign contributors paying de facto bribes of $100,000 in order to ride in a taxpayer-funded plane and get government help in swinging private deals.

It is about Bill Clinton saying "I don't recall" or its equivalent 140 times before the grand jury.

It is about a president who has consistently used the power of his office to prevent law enforcement officials from carrying out their duties and, when that hasn't worked, has conducted a propaganda jihad against them and anyone else who dared to challenge him.

It is about a leader who has manifestly failed to faithfully execute the laws of the land and has become America's most corrupt president.

And, finally, it is about a intelligentsia that created the Clinton myth and now, like their icon, refuses to admit its error and the terrible damage it has done.
 
 

A few clues

How did the brain of these well-educated Americans become so addled that they could no longer identify simple matters of truth and honor? That they no longer comprehended the meaning of words like bribe or sexual relations or is, yet presumed to lead us in matters of the mind? How did it happen that the best and brightest should find themselves defending the most puerile of vices and most corrupt of crimes with arguments that would shame a defense attorney fresh from the bar exam?

Bearing in mind that there is no good explanation for madness and that we are observing not only a test of constitutional principles but a demonstration of chaos theory, here are a few clues that may help:

In places of power knowledge has become increasingly second-hand. As our elites become better educated, more of what passes for learning is vicarious, e.g. learned from books rather than from experience. As Robert Louis Stevenson said, books are all right in their way but they are a pretty poor substitute for life.

In earlier times the learned either had to retreat to monasteries or else have their abstract knowledge constantly jostled by the daily demands of survival as well as by the philistinism and practical knowledge of the non-literate masses. Consider how different the daily life of a Jefferson or a Frederick Douglass was in comparison with that of a Tina Brown or Henry Louis Gates. In earlier times the privilege of the insular world belonged to a few monks and scholars; today it is just another commodity one can purchase.

In fact, among the most dramatic changes in Washington has been the disappearance of the practical person, the individual -- whether pol, hack or advisor -- who more than compensated for deficiencies in formal learning with a superb understanding of life. It is these individuals who lent some sanity to Washington life when politicians went bad. They were either masters of the pragmatic or of the moral, but in either case served as the gyro compass of national politics.

In their place we find a town overflowing with decadent dandies who, to quote a 19th journalist, have been educated well beyond their intellects. They keep busy creating fictions about the nature of politics and the presidency that coincidentally serve their own ambitions, until they become incapable of returning to reality and helpless before the banal practicalities of such evils as high crimes and misdemeanors.

For many of the elite, the Clinton scandals have forced them to look at real politics for the first time. They have few tools for this. After all, they work with paradigms and perceptions -- not with life.

Above all they have been taught to rely excessively on deductive thinking, in which inferences are drawn from theories rather than from facts; and in which, too often, life's phenomena are misfiled according to musty and presumptuous principles rather than truly understood.

If you think I exaggerate, consider this: while in discussions about a title for my last book, The Great American Political Repair Manual, my editor called with a concern. She said that two of her colleagues had told her that repair sounded too much like work. Of course. I had forgotten that in many parts of Manhattan the idea of repair was alien. When something broke, you just called the super.

The problem with such a dependent culture is not new in America but it doesn't have a particularly happy history. For example, one cause of the failure of early Virginian colonization was that every cavalier brought along a valet who was meant to do all the work. Thus the colony had to feed two people for every one on the job.

While the feeding problem has been largely solved in modern America by turning the cavaliers' valets into restaurant waiters, the liabilities of entitled inutility remain, among them the desiccation of the mind.

The intelligentsia, like everything else, has become corporatized. This can be seen at its worst on campuses and in publishing houses. Journalism and academia have become so subordinated to the needs of their controlling conglomerates that the vital ground between starvation and surrender has become, economically at least, increasingly difficult to hold. The safest route is to cling to symbols while shucking substance, to serve in a House of Lords of the mind, robed and bewigged but naked of power and meaning.

This alteration in the relation of the intellectual to the culture was instinctively grasped by a DC elementary school student the other day as she defined the difference between art and graffiti as "Art is when you have permission to do it." These are days when you not only need permission for art, but also to think. And the place you go for permission is, more likely than not, a corporation.

The blacklisting of skepticism.. For much of my life I have hewed to H. L. Mencken's dictum that the liberation of the human mind has been best furthered by those "who heaved dead cats into sanctuaries and then went roistering down the highways of the world, proving that doubt, after all, was safe -- that the god in the sanctuary was a fraud."

For much of my life this strategy has worked. Even in the gathering gloom of the Reagan-Bush years. But with the arrival of the Clinton administration and its cultural as well as political authoritarianism, skepticism began being blacklisted. Not only was belief to be unopposed by doubt but the terms themselves were banned. In their place was only loyalty or disloyalty. Not unlike the situation a free thinker might have run into in late 17th century Marblehead or mid-20th century Moscow.

To retain doubt was to risk being declared, among other things, a conspiracy theorist. One didn't need either a conspiracy or a theory to earn the title. Just a reasonable interest in facts and what they might mean. Or, perhaps, reasonable questions about the reliability of those serving a president who would defend himself before Congress by lying under oath about his previous lies under oath.

In fact, conspiracies are most often redundant in such a context. Put enough Yale graduates in the same room and you can reasonably predict their consensus on many matters, particularly those of interest to the Council on Foreign Relations or the Washington Post. If you are educated well enough, you'll know what to do when the time comes. No conspiracy is necessary.

Under the rules of the Clinton years, truth belongs to the one with the most microphones clamped to his podium and the most bucks to buy them. In the end it has become a struggle for the control of fact and memory not unlike that described in 1984:

"Who controls the past," ran the Party slogan, "controls the future: who controls the present controls the past." And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory.

In such a time those with wrong memories and wrong facts are considered mad, disparaged, and dropped from the Rolodex. To hold power happily, one must not be curious and one must not question fully accredited paradigms. To think is to fail. Again from 1984:

"From the proletarians nothing is to be feared. Left to themselves, they will continue from generation to generation and from century to century, working, breeding, and dying, not only without any impulse to rebel, but without the power of grasping that the world could be other than it is. What opinions the masses hold, or do not hold, is looked on as a matter of indifference. They can be granted intellectual liberty because they have no intellect. In a Party member, on the other hand, not even the smallest deviation of opinion on the most unimportant subject can be tolerated."

The decline of the struggling intellectual. America has frequently been blessed by the bitter dissatisfaction of those still barred from tasting the fruits of its ideals. It has been the pressure of the dispossessed, rather than the virtue of those in power, that has repeatedly saved this country's soul.

In this century, three such influences have been those of immigrants, blacks, and women. Yet in each case now, social and economic progress has inevitably produced a dilution of passion for justice and change.

Thus we find ourselves with a women's movement much louder in its defense of Bill Clinton than about the plight of its sisters at the bottom of the economic pile. We have conservative black economists decrying the moral debilitation of affirmative action but few rising to the defense of those suffering under the rampant incarceration of young black males. As Angela Davis recently told a group of black newspaper columnists, today some people don't even know what you mean when you speak of "the struggle."

We are also near the end of an succession of Jewish writers and thinkers, raised on the immigrant experience, who created much of the form of progressive 20th century America. Economic progress has calmed the sound of revolution and reform; in its stead we find the conservative Ben Stein speaking at a Jewish anti-abortion conference:

I'll tell you how I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Jewish position in America had changed dramatically. The wife of a very close friend of my father died a few weeks ago and they had the memorial service at the Chevy Chase Club. And there was a cantor with a yarmulke giving the service at the Chevy Chase Club. And I cannot describe to you how astonishing a turn of events this was.

Wow. If Emma Goldman could only see you now.

The point is not to begrudge anyone's social and economic progress. But if you listen carefully to black and feminist leaders today, if you press them as to why they remain so attached to Clinton, you will often hear something quite similar to Stein's view of achievement -- such as "look at all the appointments he's made" -- in fact a Reaganesque trickle-down view of cultural triumph.

Meanwhile, those truly at the bottom -- such as black and white men without a college education or new immigrant groups -- are rarely heard from or about except in reports on crime and poverty.

Outside of rap and rock, the economically disposable young male -- forming no small portion of the nearly three million Americans in prison -- remains a crisis rather than a validated culture. And when was the last time you read about Ethiopian and Salvadoran American life in the New Yorker?

The dirty secret of 20th century social movements is that they have been successful enough to create their own old boy and girl networks, powerful enough to enter the Chevy Chase Club, and indifferent enough to ignore those left behind.

Their elites have joined the Yankee and the Southern aristocrat and the rest of God's frozen people to form the largest, most prosperous, and most narcissistic intelligentsia in our history.

And as the best and brightest drive around town in their Range Rovers, who will speak for those who, in Bill Mauldin's phrase, remain fugitives from the law of averages?

We are building an oligarchy that gets its faces from Benetton but its economics from Dickens. Which is why a new President Clinton could claim his administration would "look like America" and still have the most millionaires ever in a White House cabinet. In a more recent example, a biracial coalition of successful Washingtonians went to the polls to vote for a black man alleged to represent highest ideals of the corporatist state -- it was claimed he was a "good manager." But no one in the major media noted that in the city's poorest and blackest ward, turnout for this "new era" dropped 51% from the previous mayoral election.

The rise of a post-modern adhocracy. Behind the disintegration of interest by the intelligentsia in justice and human decency has been the triumph of the various cross-currents of post-modernism. Clinton is the archetype, the man who -- so it was said in Arkansas -- would turn green if he lay on a pool table. The man who is advised weekly by pollsters on what to say he thinks. The man, who when confronted with the crisis of his life, turned first to a spin doctor to see if he could once more talk his way out of it.

But it goes much deeper than that. Once a culture accepts a value vacuum it delivers itself to an adhocracy based on propaganda and force. Truth becomes the privilege of those who are the best liars and biggest bullies.

Such an adhocracy requires not just Napoleons of the moment, seizing each sound bite and every news slot as though it were another mile of Europe, it also requires the acquiescence of all those who once would have said simply, but with force: no, that is wrong.

Instead we have an intelligentsia that, rather than doing its true work on behalf of human betterment, has become merely the technocracy of a Peronist post-constitutional regime. Instead we have an intelligentsia believing that all facts are malleable, all truths disposable, and, in the end, the only real test is what you can get away with

Long before the rise of deconstructionism, there was a name for such an approach; it was called anarchy. And those who practiced it best were not scholars and philosophers but the leaders of gangs, armies, mobs and dictators

Hence we find the journalist who asked a source the other day, "putting morality aside, what do you think?" We have a president whose disposition was greatly complicated by the fact that no one could figure out any way to shame him. We have talking heads treating the darkest of public affairs as though at just another sports contest. We have a MSNBC lightweight expressing righteous annoyance that the Lewinsky tapes weren't more interesting. And we have member after member of the intelligentsia pimping for Clinton as though it were a sign of solidarity -- wearing sophistry like a crossed ribbon on their lapel.

How long Weimar America can go on like this is anyone's guess. There is enough disgust around to fertilize yet another national transformation. There is also enough despair to prevent it.

I do know that much of this need not have happened if those blessed with the time, intellect, and position to reflect on something other than survival had used their gifts more wisely. Their betrayal of America shares with that of Clinton an egregious failure of stewardship for our times.

One of Camus' characters writes a German friend after the war:

This is what separated us from you; we made demands. You were satisfied to serve the power of your nation and we dreamed of giving ours her truth.

This then is what comprises the high crimes and misdemeanors of America's intelligentsia: it was willing to trade in the truth just to sit a little closer to power.

from TPDL 1999-May-1, from the Washington Post 1999-Apr-25 p.B7, by George Will:

PhD Plenty

Here is an irony to savor.

Once upon a time, Marxists predicted that the inevitable collapse of capitalism would be brought on by (among other "contradictions" in the system) a crisis of overproduction. That is, the steady impoverishment of the masses would mean an insufficiency of customers for what capitalism produced.

Like so many of Marx's predictions, that one is tardy in coming true. (An admirer once said of Leon Trotsky: "Proof of Trotsky's farsightedness is that none of his predictions have come true yet.") However, at long last there is indeed a crisis of overproduction in one little niche of our capitalist culture, and it is the niche where such Marxists as still exist have gone to earth.

It is in higher education. The professoriate is reproducing itself too promiscuously. There is a glut of PhDs.

This is merely the market speaking, and no Marxist worthy of his membership in the Modern Language Association (many members of which teach literature as sublimated class struggle) will willingly bend a knee to market forces. Still, although this crisis will not produce capitalism's final convulsion that ushers in socialist perfection, it is instructive. Markets communicate important information (this is why socialist nations are, strictly speaking, ignorant) and the more-than-saturated academic job market reveals important cultural facts.

The Chronicle of Higher Education, a window on the sometimes strange world of academics, reports that in 1997 universities awarded a record number of PhDs -- for the 12th consecutive year. The number, 42,705, is 10 percent higher than just five years ago and 32 percent higher than a decade ago. "However," the Chronicle says laconically, "the rate of growth in doctorates has slowed, leading some observers to predictions of a downturn within several years."

Within several years. It is nice to know that in today's revved-up world of globalized hypercommerce, where a tap on a computer key can speed vast sums around the world in response to minute changes in conditions, there still is a little lagoon of calm, where market signals, however strong, receive a leisurely response.

For more than merely "several years," there has been a buyers' market for PhDs. That will not be dramatically changed by the current modest spike in tenure-track hiring, which is being produced by two factors: retirements among faculty hired during the higher education boom of the 1960s, and surging revenues and endowments produced by the soaring economy and stock market.

The growth of a reserve army of unemployed PhDs is faster in the humanities than in fields such as engineering because engineers can more easily find attractive jobs in the corporate world. The MLA estimates that fewer than half the 8,000 PhDs hoping to be professors of literature who will be produced between 1996 and 2000 will find tenure-track jobs within a year of acquiring their degrees. And many MLA graduate students become quite cross when urged to consider alternatives to academic employment. Says one militant from the University of Florida, "I didn't go $80,000 in debt to do something else."

Academics are not immune to the spirit of the age, the entitlement mentality. They insist that the overproduction of PhDs is really just an underproduction of jobs to which they are entitled. Part of their problem is that the academy is not immune to the trend elsewhere in the economy toward "temps" -- part-time workers, often called "adjunct professors." At four-year public institutions, 23.7 percent of faculty are part-time; at private institutions, 38 percent.

Some in the anxious proletariat of those earning or possessing PhDs want to elbow aside the proletariat of "temps" -- many of whom have not yet earned PhDs -- by pressuring universities to require full-time professors to teach even elementary writing courses. But some universities are more inclined to offer freshly minted PhDs career counseling that directs them away from academia, to government or business employment.

Many political science PhDs can put their skills to work in the growing world of public policy think tanks. But such options are, to say no more, fewer for the MLA member who has just polished off his dissertation on, say, "Unconscious Homoerotic Motifs in the Poetry of Rudyard Kipling and Lyrics of Mick Jagger." Which is why lots of graduate students are not amused by a campus joke:

The science PhD asks, "Why does it work?" The engineering PhD asks, "How does it work?" The liberal arts PhD asks, "Do you want fries with that?"
 
 
 

===========================================================================================================================
President Clinton,

The Council on Foreign Relations are in violation of Title-50 War and National Defense subsection 783.

The Council on Foreign Relations is a branch of an international group of co-conspirators called the Round Table Group. Other branches include; Britain's Royal Institute of International Affairs, the Canadian Institute of International Affairs, the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs, the Australian Institute of International Affairs, the South African Institute of International Affairs, the Indian Institute of International Affairs, the Netherlands Institute of International Affairs, the Japanese Institute of Pacific Relations, the Chinese Institute of Pacific Relations, and the Russian Institute of Pacific Relations.

The Secretary of the Treasury is the public official responsible for keeping an eye on domestic and international monetary and financial policy. The following Secretaries of the Treasury are members of the Council on Foreign Relations; Robert B. Anderson(Eisenhower), Douglas C. Dillion (Kennedy/Johnson), Henry Hamill Fowler (Johnson), David M. Kennedy (Nixon), William Edward Simon (Nixon/Ford), W. Michael Blumenthal (Carter), G. William Miller (Carter) James A. Baker 3rd (Reagan), Nicholas F. Brady (Reagan/Bush).

The National Security Council provides intelligence support to the Secretary of the Treasury. The nature of the support, is classified. The support insures the Department of the Treasury acts in accord with recommended national security policy and makes its full contribution to the attainment of national security objectives and to the particular climate of opinion the United States is seeking to achieve in the world.

This opinion is formulated by Council on Foreign Relations members working in an ad hoc committee called the "Special Group" and through a vast intragovernmental undercover infrastructure called the "Secret Team". The "Special Group" and "Secret Team" insure that a well coordinated economic warfare campaign weakens non-Round Table Member controlled companies and benefits Round Table Member controlled companies in the United States and in other nations.

Even the most knowledgeable Treasury officials don't understand the role of the National Security Council in international monetary and financial policy. The "Special Group" and the "Secret Team" hide so-called national security objectives behind a veil of secrecy. This is because these objectives are in the best interest of the Round Table Group members, not in the best interest of the American public.

In 1969 Paul Volcker became Undersecretary for Monetary Affairs in the Nixon administration. Volcker's boss was Secretary of the Treasury David Kennedy. In his book Changing Fortunes, Volcker writes;

"On inauguration day I sat down in my new office in the Treasury...A memorandum arrived from the White House with, as I recall it, the title of "National Security Study Memorandum Number Two." I clearly had not been on the list for Number One but, after all, Number Two was not bad. I didn't really know what a National Security Study Memorandum was in those days, but since it was signed by Henry Kissinger on behalf of the president, it was obviously something to be taken seriously.

The memorandum described administrative and other arrangements for the conduct of international monetary affairs by the new administration. It designated the Undersecretary for Monetary Affairs - the position to which I would be nominated - to chair an inter-agency committee on the subject. The previous administration had such a group, so that was no striking new initiative, but it was nice for me to have my bureaucratic position confirmed. The memo also said that in that capacity I should report to Henry Kissinger at the National Security Council. That was unusual news to me, being in the Treasury Department. I went running to Secretary Kennedy's office and said, "You'd better take care of this quick, because it seems to cut you out of the loop." He was not very close to Mr. Nixon at the time, and I sensed his hesitation about what to do. I always suspected he just ignored that part of the directive, because that's certainly what I did. Henry Kissinger had other things to worry about during those days. Besides, one of his stable of assistants, Fred Bergsten, was a member of the inter-agency group, and I knew he was fully capable of keeping Henry informed.

I never heard another word about it, and I suspect papers on the intricacies of international monetary affairs ended up at the bottom of Kissinger's in-tray, assuming they ever got that far. But it was to me an interesting lesson in bureaucratic one-upmanship. Kissinger had been designated to his position many weeks earlier, had a staff in place, access to the president, and an instinct to make good use of his head start...."

David M. Kennedy, Paul A. Volcker, Henry A. Kissinger, and Fred C. Bergsten are all Council on Foreign Relations members.

On 21 of September 1964, a congressional Subcommittee on Domestic Finance, Committee on Banking and Currency, Chaired by Wright Patman, issued a report entitled Money Facts - 169 Questions and Answers on Money - A Supplement to A primer on Money. One fact is "Congress has never given authority for determining money policy to the Federal Reserve System - and certainly not to a committee within the system containing members who owe their selection to private bank interest." Yet, this is exactly what has happened. The Federal Reserve System, the banks that own it, and the governmental agencies involved with the monetary policy have something in common -- many of their executives are members of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Alan Greenspan, Paul Volcker, G. William Miller, and William McChesney Martin have all chaired the Federal Reserve board. All are members of the Council on Foreign Relations. As of September 1993, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that handling losses in failed savings and loan institutions would cost $120 billion from 1990 through 1998 (this figure does not include $60 billion spent before 1989). The Congressional Budget Offices underestimated. To date (1996) losses in failed savings and loan institutions have cost American citizens $500 billion dollars. Very few of the individuals responsible for the "losses" have been punished including sons of Council on Foreign Relations members George Bush and Lloyd Benson.

In 1987 leaders of America's major banks went to Tokyo. They met with our finance minister and governor of the central bank. They urged more positive cooperation by Japanese banks. The big American banks were caught in the dilemma of their Latin American Debt. On the one hand, they had to suffer the losses caused in part by their own overlending, which meant they could not continue being exposed to new loans to Latin America. On the other hand, they were unable to jettison Latin America, which for them was an important market. The leaders of the banks attending the meeting were John Reed of Citibank, Willard Butcher of Chase, Lewis Preston of Morgan, and Tom Clausen of the Bank of America. Reed, Butcher and Preston are all members of the Council on Foreign Relations.

The United States Code contains the general and permanent laws of the United States. The United States Code is prepared and published by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives. The laws have been classified into fifty categories. A category is called a Title. For example, laws pertaining to the President are found in Title 3 The President. Title 12 is called Banks and Banking. A reading of laws contained in Title 12 back up the statement that Congress has not given authority for determining money policy to the Federal Reserve System.

Title 50 War and National Defense clearly spells out such a role for the Federal Reserve. Title 50 Section 101 is the National Security Emergency Preparedness Policy. In this policy in Part 15 - Department of the Treasury in Section 1501 Lead Responsibilities we find that "the Secretary of the Treasury shall: (1) Develop plans to maintain stable economic conditions and a market economy during national security emergencies; emphasize measures to minimize inflation and disruptions; and minimize reliance on direct controls of the monetary, credit, and financial systems. These plans will include provisions for: (a) Increasing capabilities to minimize economic dislocations by carrying out appropriate fiscal, monetary, and regulatory polices and reducing susceptibility to manipulated economic pressures; (b) Providing the Federal Government with efficient and equitable financing sources and payment mechanisms."

Has the Federal Reserve been acting as if we have been in a perpetual National Security Emergency? Has the federal reserve been fine tuning the economy of the United States and advertising that it had the legal powers to do so when it really does not? If the Federal Reserve bank had these responsibilities spelled out in Title 12 Banks and Banking wouldn't Title 50 merely reference those sections that state these responsibilities? Allen Greenspan, head of the Federal Reserve, Clinton's Economic Advisor Laura Dandrea Tyson, Clinton's International Security Advisor Lynn Etheridge Davis (who is also a Vice President of Chase Bank) and, you, President Bill Clinton, are all Council on Foreign Relations members.

Is the destiny of the American people being controlled by a group who have and hold the power to direct the credit policy of our nation. A group that has circumvented the check and balance safe-guards built into the system to prevent any one group from having this kind of power over the American citizen. A group whose self-proclaimed drive is for personal profit and who lack the honesty and integrity to make decisions based on public good.

Are Council on Foreign Relations members furthering a plan for a world order based on an economy of unrest? Are Council on Foreign Relations members subtle fascists intently interested in private ownership of property, under their control? Did the Council on Foreign Relations instigate and perpetuate the cold war? Did they do this to accumulate and protect Council holdings? Was this done by establishing and maintaining the most powerful U.S. military establishment in peacetime history? Is the next stage in the plan to co-opt and divide eastern Europe and the rest of the world? Is the next stage in the plan for powerful World-Wide military establishment of "volunteer" military forces under UN command in the role of Peacekeepers? Was detonation of the first nuclear bomb, in Alamogordo New Mexico, on July 16, 1945, in a field test code-named Trinity, the Council's subtle way of sounding the deathbell for Jefferson's Trinity of inalienable rights?

The Joint Chiefs of Staff have defined psychological operations (PSYOPS) as those that: "include psychological warfare and, in addition, encompass those political, military, economic and ideological actions planned and conducted to create in neutral or friendly foreign groups the emotions, attitudes, or behavior to support achievement of national objectives." Another proposal "develops the concept of 'strategic psychological operations' as aimed at influencing and shaping decision-makers' power to govern or control their followers." Wake up America, we the American people, are among the groups being targeted and controlled.

Council on Foreign Relations members in the State Department, The National Security Council, the Central Intelligence Agency, and in the Department of Defense continue to control the lives of the American people through well planed psycho-political operations. These psychological operations rob American citizens of the present, by creating false reality worlds. These false reality worlds are created to trick the American public into acting not in their own best interest but in the best interest of a group of subtle fascists intent on creating one world order under their control.

Title-50 War and National Defense subsection 783 states - "It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to combine, conspire, or agree with any other person to perform any act which would substantially contribute to the establishment within the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship, the direction and control of which is to be vested in, or exercised by or under the domination of control of, any foreign government."

The Council on Foreign Relations are in violation of Title-50 War and National Defense subsection 783. The Council on Foreign Relations has unlawfully and knowingly combined, conspired, and agreed to substantially contribute to the establishment of one world order under the totalitarian dictatorship, the direction and the control of members of Council on Foreign Relations, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, and members of Round Table branch organizations in various nations throughout the world.

In the 60's a youngster named Joan Baez objected to her tax money being spent on War. She protested. She was arrested and forced to pay her taxes for a cause she felt was unjust. Ms. Baez did a very brave thing. Ms. Baez's demonstration offers a way to shift governmental control back to the people -- "trickle up taxes." There would be only one tax, a flat income tax. There would be no hidden taxes such as business taxes, sales taxes or value added taxes. Each taxpayer would know exactly how much taxes they had to pay. Rather than corporations withholding taxes from workers, the worker would receive all their salary. At the end of the year the worker would receive a tax package. It would contain (1) a detailed account of the budget and how the "tax payers dollar" was spent during the the current financial year; and (2) a proposed budget and spending plan for the next financial year. The budget and spending plans would be broken down into broad areas indicating the percentage of a tax payer dollar being spent on programs in each area ( 1. federal 2. state 3. county and 4. local ).

Each area would be broken down into broad categories showing how the tax money was distributed. For example the Federal budget and spending plan for 1995 was 1.4 Trillion dollars distributed in the following way: 1. Defense(20%,$270 billion), 2. Welfare Employment and Retirement (17%, $220 billion), 3. Social Security (24%, $328 billion), and 4. Interest on the Debt (16%, $214 billion) 5. Science and Space (1%, $17 billion), 6. Environment (1.5%, 21 billion), 7. Agriculture (1%, 12 billion), 8. Transportation (3%,39 billion), 9. Education (4%, 15 billion), 10. Law Enforcement (1%, 17 billion), 11. Veterans (2.5%, 36.6 billion), and 12. Health (w/o Medicare) (9%, 122 billion). The percents are the portion of one "tax payer" Federal Dollar spent on each Federal program. The dollar amounts are the total number of taxpayer dollars spent on all programs in each category. Similar breakdowns would supplied for state programs, county programs, and local programs. Detailed breakdowns on a per program basis would be provided.

The taxpayer would receive a proposed budget and spending plan for the next financial year in a form of a worksheet. Each tax payer would have one "tax dollar" to distribute in each area. If the taxpayer's "tax dollar" could not cover all the budgeted expenses (at the local, county, state, and federal levels) the tax payer would decide which programs budgets to cut. A tax-payer could also redistribute portions of their tax payer dollars from one are to another (i.e. a tax-payer could redistribute Federal tax dollars to State programs that were underfunded). If the tax payer had a new program they could fund it with a percentage of their "tax dollar" redistributing percentages of their "tax dollar" from local, state, county and federal programs as needed.

For example, suppose the proposed Federal budget was the same as the 1995 Budget outlined above. If a taxpayer felt it was important to pay off the debt they might submit the following federal budget 1. Defense(0%), 1. Payment of Debt (20%, $270 billion) 2. Welfare Employment and Retirement (17%, $220 billion), 3. Social Security (24%, $328 billion), and 4. Interest on the Debt (16% $214 billion) 5. Science and Space (1%, $17 billion), 6. Environment (1.5%, 21 billion), 7. Agriculture (1%, 12 billion), 8. Transportation (3%,39 billion), 9. Education (4%, 15 billion), 10. Law Enforcement (1%, 17 billion), 11. Veterans (2.5%, 36.6 billion), and 12. Health (w/o Medicare) (9%, 122 billion).

This tax-payer re-distributed the percentage of their "tax dollar" from Defense to a new category -- Payment of the debt. The tax-payer could also offer an explanation of their proposed budget change. This tax-payer might say that since the cold war was over a large defense budget was not only unnecessary but weakening the country economically and making it vulnerable to potential enemies. If the suggested proposal was adopted the debt would eventually be retired (about $4.5 Trillion in 1995) and both the new category Paying off the Debt (24%, $270 billion) and the category Interest on the debt (16%,$214 billion) would no longer be needed in the budget. The taxpayer could then decide how to re-distribute that portion of the tax money, or even lower the tax burden by $484 billion per year.

Today we have about 115 million Americans employed (76% of all men over 16 years old and 58% of all women over 16 years old). Each American fills out a tax form that is sent to the government. The tax form has no influence on how their tax dollar is spent. This system of taxation would be abolished. Trickle up taxes would be instituted and carried out as an educational exercise in all local schools (public, private, and parochial). School children at all grade levels would participate. The taxpayers would receive three envelopes. They would send a check for taxes owed in one envelope. This would be a flat percentage of the tax payer's income. The amount would include local, county, state, and Federal tax dollars. They would put the proposed budget and spending plan worksheet in the second envelope. The budget and spending plan worksheet would not have the tax payers name on it - it would be a colorless, raceless, religionless, sexless and ageless "tax distribution idea form." The tax payer would put the two envelopes into a third envelope and mail it to their local school. The envelopes would be sorted. The results from the "tax distribution idea forms" would be compiled, summarized and distributed to the taxpayers. The taxpayer would learn which programs received adequate funding, and which programs did not. The taxpayer would receive a list of new programs proposed by taxpayers. Those programs receiving adequate taxpayer support would be started. Money from those programs that did not receive adequate funding would be held in escrow until the taxpayers decided what to do.

The experience would be rewarding, educational, and enlightening for everyone. The entire community would share in a educative experience that would effect their social environment in a most democratic way. If a person didn't wish to participate their "tax dollar" would be trickled up according to the percentages decided upon by their neighbors. Everyone would have exactly four "tax dollars" to distribute, and therefore, be equal with everyone else. If one person had a unique idea that appealed to a majority of American citizens the majority of Americans could be swayed to accept the idea of this minority of one, change their current way of thinking, adopt the new idea, and trickle it up. This would happen at the local, county, state, and Federal levels. Legislation such as a balanced budget, questionable Energy choices such as Nuclear, and maintaining huge defense budgets in time of peace, would be trickled up through the people, rather than trickled down to them, in a manner whose legality, source, and intent is questionable.

This procedure would be followed each year. Each year the taxpayer could review new programs proposed the previous year which might include more efficient ways of spending the tax dollar. The taxpayer would decide what percentage of their tax dollar was spent at the local, county, state, and federal levels giving the tax payer control over how and where their money is spent. The experience would allow the 300 million American citizens to trickle up a budget and plan for their public servants to follow. Public servants wouldn't have the pressure of solving all of America's problems, and couldn't be influenced by any small group, or tempted by a wealthy lobbyist. Problems would be solved by the American citizen. This would be a true form of absolute democracy, wherein each American would have the opportunity to participate. This would be in line with the Jeffersonian concept of a popular government and would provide protection of the rights of the individual against arbitrary action of public officials.

If you visit Dumbarton Oaks you will see a Latin parable at the head of the dedicatory inscription and carved elsewhere in the gardens. The parable is -- "Quod Severis Metes" -- "As ye sow, so shall ye reap." It would be wise for Council on Foreign Relations and other Round Table Group members to heed that parable. In 1776 Jefferson told Americans what to do when their inalienable Rights of Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness are jeopardized, "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.."
============================================================================================================================

President Clinton,
it is illegal to import RU-4-86 into the into the US. President Clinton, U R breaking the law.

Former New York Governor, Mario Cuomo created a task force on Life and the Law. They found "the age at which a fetus could survive outside the womb is 23 weeks" and concluded abortion is OK before 23 weeks. That task force is wrong. Life begins at conception. A fetus more than 23 weeks old can not survive without human help any more than a fetus less than 23 weeks can. If it is illegal to kill a human being 23 weeks or older it is illegal to kill the human being any time after conception. Mario Cuomo's argument is an example of false deceptive reasoning. President Clinton, abortion is infanticide.

Ironically Cuomo, extradited a man facing the death penalty in Oklahoma for murdering a senior citizen, because the killer had first murdered a senior citizen in New York. Cuomo, said he extradited the man because the death penalty for murderers violated the sixth commandment, "thou shall not kill." The murderer is serving a life term in a New York prison. If Cuomo, is so concerned about living in accord with the sixth commandment why isn't Cuomo strongly opposed to abortion at any stage of life?

Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun is guilty of the same twisted logic. Blackmun personally opposed the death penalty and wrote that the death penalty is unconstitutional because it could not be fairly administered. Blackmun's concern for human life didn't extend to the unborn child. Twenty-three years ago, the Supreme Court decided, 7 to 2, that the right to privacy conferred upon women the right to choose whether or not human rights applied to their child. The decision is worded in a most astonishing fashion. "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins," stated Justice Blackmun. Women, particularly, should be wary of embracing this standard, since their status has long depended on the willingness of men to grant them their rights. Elizabeth Cady Stanton wrote in 1870, "When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." The idea expressed in Roe vs. Wade, that human rights are dependent upon the wishes of others, is degrading to feminism and every other movement based on equality.

President Clinton, many times in human history, human beings -- whether black, Jew or female, the handicapped or the elderly -- have been discriminated against and dehumanized. Today, we are witnessing the ultimate dehumanization of the most defenseless class of people -- unborn children. The abortion controversy is tricking people into treating unborn children as property. The abortion controversy is trivializing the roles and responsibilities of parenthood. The abortion controversy is trying to trick people into believing that children's lives must be lost so that women can be free. Is the abortion controversy part of a well planned psycho-political operation meant to create tension between men and women, weaken the traditional family structure, and confuse people about religious values?

Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) members are adept at the art of deception. CFR members are adept at providing faulty reasons for rationalizing immoral and illegal acts. CFR members work together as partners in well planned psycho-political operations designed to manipulate and control public opinion. President Clinton, your memorandum inquiring why RU-4-86 should not be imported into the US was addressed to the Director of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala. On July 19, 1996 the FDA gave the green light to import RU-4-86. President Clinton, you, Donna Shalala, and Mario Cuomo all belong to the CFR.

The CFR belongs to an international group called the Round Table. RU-4-86 is produced by Roussel Ucalf, a French Company whose German parent company is Hoechst. Already used in France, Britain, and China to abort more than 200,000 unborn babies, RU-4-86 blocks the actions of the pregnancy hormone progesterone, which helps to create and maintain the uterine lining which provides nourishment and oxygen for the developing child. Cut off from its "life support" system, the baby shrivels and finally suffocates or starves to death. A second drug, a prostaglandin, is given 36 to 48 hours later to stimulate violent uterine contractions to expel the dead baby.

Pamela Harriman, a CFR member, was your French ambassador. On 13 February, you and fellow CFR members Thomas Foley (D-WA), Bosnia peace negotiator Richard Holbrooke, Presidential adviser Vernon Jordon, investment tycoon Felix Rohatyn, and Washington Post publisher Katharine Graham attended Harriman's funeral. Hoechst AG and Roussel Uclaf, the European companies responsible for developing and producing RU-4-86 and introducing it to the US, have recently taken steps to expand their share of the American market, acquiring Kansas City based Marion Merrell Dow to form a new international pharmaceutical conglomerate under the name Hoechst Marion Roussel. President Clinton, how much money do Round Table group industries at home and abroad stand to make from the sale of RU-4-86?

The RAND Corporation, a CFR Think Tank, is researching Population Control. Key members of your administration work for RAND. International Security Advisor Lynn Etheridge Davis (author of the initial draft of the Church Committee's report NSC Chapter) and Economic Advisor Laura D'Andrea Tyson are CFR members who work for RAND. RAND is conducting studies in applied demography (Population Control) as a way to improve financial, political, and legal analysis. President Clinton, is legalized abortion part of a Round Table strategic psychological operation of applied demography?

On the day of Harriman's funeral, 13 February 1997, the House voted narrowly to approve your request to release $385 million in international family planning funds four months earlier than scheduled. As the bill stands now the money can be used to promote abortion as a method of family planning. The vote on (HJRes36) was 220-209 with 44 republicans joining 175 democrats in support.

Twelve of the House members were CFR members. Eleven Council members voted for the bill and 1 voted against the bill. The Council on Foreign Relations members were the 11 vote marginal difference causing the resolution to pass. President Clinton, do CFR members in the House and Senate work together to fix Congressional votes to promote Round Table aims?

CFR members voting for the bill were: Lee H. Hamilton (D-IN, Methodist), Donald M. Payne (D-NJ, Baptist), Charles B. Rangle (D-NY, Catholic), Howard L. Berman (D-CA, Jewish), Robert T. Matsui (D-CA, United Methodist), Sam Gejedenson (D-CT, Jewish), Louis Stokes (D-OH, A. M. E. Zion), John M. Spratt Jr. (D-SC, Presbyterian), Richard Gephardt (D-MO, Baptist), Jim Leach (R-IA, Episcopalian), Amory Houghton Jr. (R-NY, Episcopalian). Newton Gingrich (R-GA, Baptist), was the only CFR member voting against the bill.

The House later passed, 231-194, an anti-abortion bill (HR581). The measure would free the $385 million on March 1, as you requested, but would reinstate the Reagan-Bush policy of barring international family planning groups from using their own funds to perform or promote abortion.

President Clinton, you and your administration oppose this measure. You and your fellow CFR members are stacking the deck in favor of pro-abortion legislation. You and your fellow CFR co-conspirators are doing this as part of an international psycho-political operation in applied population control and so CFR companies can profit from RU-4-86 abortions.

The Population Council, a Manhattan based family planning research group, sponsored RU-4-86. In 1994, Hoechst donated the rights to RU-4-86 to the Population Council. They tested the drug in the US. On March 18, 1996 the Population Council submitted a 164-volume application to the FDA for permission to market the drug. The FDA considered RU-4-86 a priority drug, since nothing like it was sold in this country. Considering the drug a priority drug forced an FDA decision within 6 months. On July 19, 1996, an FDA advisory recommended approval.

There is no domestic abortion drug because the majority of Americans oppose murdering their children and oppose abortion. Rather than railroading the drug through the FDA, the FDA should have insisted on extra time to consider approval. If the FDA had taken more time they might have discovered that The Code of Federal Regulations Immoral articles; Importation Prohibited 19 Subsection 1305, makes it illegal to import RU-4-86 into the US. Could it be that RU-4-86 approval was railroaded through the FDA to give them an excuse for not discovering that importation of RU-4-86 is illegal? Is the Population Council a CFR/CIA proprietary corporation that will help finance the abortion PSYOP from RU-4-86 generated money?

"Tactics of Deception" are formalized psychological warfare techniques used to build a psychological environment that differs from the material environment. "Tactics of deception" are used to create false reality worlds. In terms of perceptual psychology, "Tactics of Deception" provoke illusory percepts. To influence behavior the deception must follow three basic rules. First, the deception must be "reasonable"; second there must be no simple way of checking the facts in the case; and third the use of deception should not discredit a source which may have valuable future potential.

The media uses a tactic of deception called a "Limited Hangout." "Limited Hangouts" are used to shape public opinion to support the aims of well planned psychological operations. Stories are carefully crafted to contain some of the truth while withholding key information. "Tactics of Deception" are nothing more than a sophisticated form of lying.

In 1986 two secret U.S. Government operations were publicly exposed implicating Reagan Administration officials in illegal activities. These operations became known as the Iran-Contra Affair. A seven year investigation costing millions of dollars ensued. Only one person spent time in prison - he was found guilty of not paying his income taxes. The Office of Independent Counsel's report states "it is important to emphasize that both the Iran and contra operations, separately, violated the United States policy and law."

Lawrence E. Walsh was Independent Counsel. In 1969 Walsh worked with CFR member Kissinger at the meetings on Vietnam in Paris. In 1981 Walsh worked for Crowe and Dunlevy a law firm representing Oil Companies, Air Lines, and Insurance Companies run by CFR members. Was the Walsh investigation designed to give the appearance that justice was served while in effect being a clever way of obstructing justice? Was the Walsh investigation part of a sophisticated "limited hangout"? Did CFR media members, lawyers, and judges, all profit monetarily from the publicity generated under the pretense of doing something important, while justice went unserved and the guilty went free?

CFR members George Bush, Elliot Abrams, Casper Weinberger, Robert M. Gates, William J. Casey, and Robert C. McFarlane advised Regan to go ahead with Iran-Contra. On December 24, 1992, Bush pardoned fellow CFR members Weinberger, McFarlane, Abrams, and three CIA chiefs named Fiers, George, and Clarridge. Isn't there a conflict of interest apparent in this pardon? Isn't advising the President to break the law Treason? Why weren't the people involved charged with Treason? Have members of the intelligence community that belong to the CFR gained control of the US government?

CFR members William S. Cohen (R-ME) and George J. Mitchell (D-ME), served on a non-partisan Joint House and Senate Select Committee that investigated Iran-Contra. They co-authored a book about Iran-Contra. Book reviewer R. F. Drinan ( America Mr 4 '89) writes, "The impact of this book is blunted by Cohen and Mitchell's extensive efforts to avoid making tough judgements of witnesses who were obviously lying or evading committee member's questions..." Stephen Engelberg NY Times Book Rev (pg 36 S 25 '88) writes, "This book includes some well-etched portraits of the players in the Iran-contra affair." Conspicuously missing from these well-etched portraits is how the players, including the committee members Cohen and Mitchell, are connected through the CFR. Cohen and Mitchell titled their book Men of Zeal. A more accurate title would be Greedy Heels Who Lie, Cheat, and Steal.

An analysis of 1994 US Election Results ("Bias seeps into news on abortion", by David Shaw, The LA Times, July 1, 1990 ) shows that of the 11 newly elected senators, only Olympia Snowe (R-Maine, Greek-Orthodox) had a pro-abortion position. Olympia Snowe is a CFR member. Ms. Snowe replaced retiring pro-abortion CFR member Sen. George Mitchell (D).

The Mother Jones 400 is an interactive database of the top four hundred campaign contributors. Eighty Per Cent of the MoJo 400 Contributors (316 Contributors) gave to one or more CFR members.

Gordon Gray designed and directed the Psychological Strategy Board and Operations Coordination Board. The PSB and OCB co-ordinated well planned psychological operations in conjunction with the NSC. Gray's consultant was Henry Kissinger. Kissinger was also the paid political advisor to Rockefeller family. Gray was heir to the R. J. Reynolds tobacco fortune. Gray and Kissinger were CFR members. Gray served in the administrations of Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford. Gray was a broadcast and publication media specialist. Gray kept the uniformed electorate uninformed by design.

MoJo Contributor 146 is Gordon Gray's son, C. Boyden Gray. MoJo Contributor 174 is Laurence S. Rockefeller. John D. Rockefeller IV (Jay) (D-WV) is a MoJo Recipient. Both C. Boyden Gray and Laurence S. Rockefeller contributed to four CFR members:

Gray contributed to Council members:

William E. Brock III

William S. Cohen (R-ME)

John Chafee (R-RI), and

Olympia J. Snowe.

Laurence Rockefeller contributed to Council members:

William E. Brock III

Amory Houghton Jr. (R-NY) ( MoJo185 Contributor as well as Recipient)

Daniel Moynihan (D-NY), and

John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV (D-WV)

In the mid-80's Iran-Contra affair money helped the CIA produce a small handbook called Psychological Operation's In Guerrilla Warfare. The manual was for the Nicaraguan Democratic Forces, a group of Nicaraguan rebels. In the United States this group was better known as the "contras" or anti-Sandinista rebels. The manual was based on Psychological Operation material developed at the Army Special Warfare School at Fort Bragg in April of 1968. When first revealed the manual caused a storm of controversy. President Reagan promised a detailed inquiry. However, only a few low-level CIA employees were reprimanded. The matter was then officially closed.

The introduction offers insight into the twisted thinking of our so-called intelligence organizations,

"This conception of guerrilla warfare as political war turns Psychological Operations into the decisive factor of the results. The target, then, is the minds of the population, all the population: our troops, the enemy troops and the civilian population. This manual is a manual for the training of guerrillas in psychological operations, and its application to the concrete case of the Christian and democratic crusade being waged in Nicaragua by the Freedom Commandos. Welcome!"

The original manual suggested hiring professional criminals to stir up trouble at demonstrations so people would be killed and martyrs created from among the contra ranks. Edgar Chammoro, the Nicaraguan Democratic Forces director of propaganda objected to this material. The pages containing it were ripped from the first printing of the manuals.

The manual provides the following advice for controlling meetings and mass assemblies,

"The control of mass meetings in support of guerrilla warfare is carried out internally through a covert commando element...The psychological apparatus of our movement through inside cadres prepares a mental attitude which at the crucial moment can be turned into a fury of justified violence. Through a small group of guerrillas infiltrated within the masses this can be carried out: they will have the mission of agitating by giving the impression that there are many of them and that they have a large popular backing. Using the tactics of a force of 200-300 agitators, a demonstration can be created in which 10,000-20,000 persons take part. "

The Joint Chiefs of Staff have defined psychological operations (PSYOPS) as those that:

"include psychological warfare and, in addition, encompass those political, military, economic and ideological actions planned and conducted to create in neutral or friendly foreign groups the emotions, attitudes, or behavior to support achievement of national objectives." Another proposal "develops the concept of 'strategic psychological operations' as aimed at influencing and shaping decision-makers' power to govern or control their followers."

President Clinton, U.S.I.A. Report, R-76-62 (1962) is used as a PSYOP-related intelligence sourcebook for field personnel. It provides a list of four broad categories of target groups:

I. General populace target groups: 1. peasants, 2. labor, 3. urban proletariat (unskilled labor), 4. army enlisted men, 5. ethnic minorities, 6. women.

II. Middle level target groups: 1. mass communicators, 2. religious leaders, 3. labor leaders, 4. junior army officers, 5. small business men, 6. university students, 7. teachers and University professors.

III. Elite-level target groups: 1. intellectuals and administrators (management in industry and government), 2. intellectuals and specialist (chemists, engineers, accountants, statisticians, doctors, and lawyers), and 3. upper-rank military officers.

IV. Voluntary Associations and Interest Groups.

Round Table Group members in different nations control both Government agency, and "private- industry" news sources. The CFR propaganda machine manipulates American Citizens to accept the particular climate of opinion the Round Table Groups are seeking to achieve in the world.

CFR members working in an ad hoc committee called the ""Special Group"" and through a vast intragovernmental undercover infrastructure called the "Secret Team" formulate this opinion in the US. The CFR, has methodically taken over the Department of State, The Federal Reserve, and the CIA. President Clinton, has the CFR taken over congress? Do CFR members in the House and Senate work together to fix Congressional votes to promote Round Table aims?

President Clinton, did CIA agents infiltrate student groups in the 60's and create incidents to divide and conquer a well educated generation of young people? Have the CIA, FBI and other intelligence agencies used these tactics to infiltrate professional associations such as the AMA, AAAS, IEEE, the ABA, and the ACLU? Are CFR members and insiders in the State Department, The National Security Council, the CIA, and in Congress, infiltrating both pro and anti abortion groups and manipulating their objectives to create emotions, attitudes, and behavior to support Round Table aims? Is the American public being tricked into acting not in their own best interest but in the best interest of a group of subtle fascists intent on creating one world order under their control?

President Clinton, a psychological warfare technique used to demoralize a target population is to attack a groups religion and family structure. The CFR achieves this objective by using its governmental control to legislate immorality. At least two supreme court justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg (Jewish), and Sandra Day O'Connor (Catholic) are CFR members. CFR Presidents include, Bill Clinton (D,Baptist), George Bush (R, Episcopalian), Jimmy Carter (D, Born Again Christian) and Gerald Ford (R, Episcopalian). CIA director John Deutch, and the Director of the State Department Madeleine Albright are members of the CFR. Council on Foreign Relations members, Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), Sen. Charles S. Robb (D-VA), Sen. John Forbes Kerry (D-MA) Sen. William S. Cohen (R-ME),Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-IN), and Rep. Lee H. Hamilton (D-IN) sit on the Congressional Select Intelligence Committee.

President Clinton, if the CFR controls the executive office and Congress, legislation opposed by a large majority of Americans can be forced upon them. This was done in September of 1996 when the House and Senate voted on whether to override your presidential veto of a bill that would have banned a controversial procedure for late-term abortions. A two-thirds vote of both houses is required to enact a bill over a presidential veto.

The bill would have banned "partial-birth abortion," a procedure in which a woman's birth canal is widened and the fetus is removed feet first until only the head remains in the uterus. A doctor then collapses the fetus's skull so the head can be drawn through the birth canal.

Polls show a large majority of Americans oppose late-term abortions. Senators talked of receiving thousands of petitions and postcards urging that your veto be overridden, including 10,000 cards circulated by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops.

On 19 September the House voted to override the veto (285-137 -- four more votes than needed).

On 27 September the Senate failed to override your veto (57-41 -- nine votes fewer than needed). Seventeen Senators who voted were your fellow CFR members. Thirteen CFR senators voted to sustain your veto-- four CFR senators voted to overturn. The nine votes needed to overturn the veto were CFR member votes. Only six Republican Senators voted to sustain your veto. Five of the six were CFR members. President Clinton, do CFR members in the House and Senate work together to fix Congressional votes to promote Round Table aims?

The thirteen CFR Senators who voted to sustain your veto were: Nancy L. Kassebaum (R-KS, Episcopalian), William Cohen (R-ME, UnitArian), John H. Chafee (R-RI, Episcopalian), Alan K. Simpson (R-WY, Episcopalian), Olympia Snowe (R-ME, Greek Orthodox), John Forbes Kerry (D-MA, Catholic), Christopher Dodd (D-CT, Catholic), Bob Graham (D-FL, United Church of Christ), , Claiborne Pell (D-RI, Episcopalian), Charles S. Robb (D-VA, Episcopalian), John (Jay) D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV, Presbyterian), William Bradley (D-NJ, Presbyterian), and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA, Jewish). The Four CFR Senators who voted to overturn were ( 3 Republicans 1 Democrat): William V. Roth Jr. (R-DE, Episcopalian), Larry Pressler (R-SD, Catholic), Richard G. Lugar (R-IN, Methodist), Daniel Moynihan (D-NY, Catholic).

President Clinton, the Abortion controversy is a carefully planned psychological operation meant to create a conflict between morality and reality. There is no conflict between morality and reality. The existing conflict is between the moral and perceived reality worlds created by the Abortion PSYOP. The use of the Abortion PSYOP to increase discord is immoral. The American public has never been enamored with psychological operations. The public has rightly been wary of this technique. The use of propaganda changes a persons reality world and can cause them to act in a manner they never would have acted in under normal conditions. It is a form of organized coercion. It is a form of mental manipulation and mind control.

President Clinton:

1. Abortion is not pro-choice vs pro-life, it is pro-murder vs anti-murder. RU-4-86 isn't a contraceptive. Used at 5 to 7 weeks, RU-4-86 kills an unborn baby whose heart has already begun to beat. All life begins at conception. Murder is the premeditated taking of an innocent human life. It is illegal to legalize murder in the United States of America. If it is murder to kill a baby after it is born, it is murder to kill the baby after it is conceived.

2. RU-4-86 will help increase the number of doctors willing to perform abortions. An RU-4-86 abortion can be performed by any physician by simply writing a prescription. Since there has always been a corollary between the number of abortions and the number of abortionists, RU-4-86 is likely to increase the number of abortions in the U.S. beyond the already appalling 1. 5 million a year.

3. RU-4-86 isn't safe or easy. RU-4-86 induces violent contractions of the uterus inducing miscarriage. This is unhealthy and unnatural. Heavy bleeding, nausea, vomiting, and painful uterine contractions are common features. About 2% hemorrhage and more than 1 in a 100 require hospitalization. An Iowa woman took RU-4-86 and lost nearly 3/4 of her blood and likely would have died without emergency surgery.

4. RU-4-86 isn't simple or convenient. At a minimum, the RU-4-86 procedure involves two drugs and three trips to the doctor's office over a two week period. For 4-5% of women, the pills don't work, making them return for surgical abortions.

5. An RU-4-86 abortion will cost $400. Hundreds of millions of dollars will be made by physicians prescribing RU-4-86 and by its manufacturer. Perhaps the reason physicians, biologists, and other scientists, seem confused over the question of when life begins is because they can make money from the confusion.

6. Roe vs Wade places the entire burden of responsibility for murdering the child on the female. The mother becomes responsible for administering the poison that will murder the unborn child. Any normal human being who decided to kill their child would question the ethics of such a decision for the rest of their life. Judeo/Christian ethics are very clear on the subject of murder - "Thou shall not Kill." Roe vs. Wade has created a moral dilemma for women by allowing a woman to murder her own child during a certain period of its growth.

7. Roe v. Wade should be overturned --. If it is illegal and immoral for either parent to kill a baby after it is born, it is illegal and immoral for either parent kill the baby while it is growing inside its mother's body.

8. The latest psychological strategy is to turn the abortion controversy into a partisan issue. The American citizen is being manipulated into perceiving Republicans as being "pro-life" and Democrats as "pro-choice." This is hog-wash. A normal human being will feel guilty about murdering their baby whether they are a Democrat or a Republican.

President Clinton, CFR members are working together to re-define when human life begins. They are doing this to confuse people and provide them with a reality world wherein they can rationalize murdering their own children. President Clinton, tricking another person to commit murder makes you a murderer. Why don't you speak to your Baptist minister about it the next time you go to church.

President Clinton, are CFR members going to recommend their youngsters use RU-4-86 to kill an unwanted child? How would you feel if Chelsea used RU-4-86 to kill her baby? If RU-4-86 was legalized before Chelsea was born would you have been happy to see Hillary use it to kill Chelsea?

President Clinton, in an era of extramarital escapades, when many a politician is prone to drop his drawers whenever female opportunity arises, could some politicians be pro-RU-4-86 to have a way to kill a politically embarrassing illegitimate child they are unwilling to accept responsibility for?

President Clinton, you are an adulterer who cheated on your wife and child. Men who cheat on their families should not be trusted running the nation. Men who risk fathering illegitimate offspring and their CFR cronies should not be railroading legalized abortion through Congress.

President Clinton, The Code of Federal Regulations Immoral articles; Importation Prohibited 19 Subsection 1305, makes it illegal to import RU-4-86 into the US. President Clinton, advise, The FDA of its error, and make it reverse its decision.
=================================================================================================================
 
 

The Council on Foreign Relations is a branch of an international group of co-conspirators called the Round Table Group. Other branches include; Britain's Royal Institute of International Affairs, the Canadian Institute of International Affairs, the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs, the Australian Institute of International Affairs, the South African Institute of International Affairs, the Indian Institute of International Affairs, the Netherlands Institute of International Affairs, the Japanese Institute of Pacific Relations, the Chinese Institute of Pacific Relations, and the Russian Institute of Pacific Relations.  The Secretary of the Treasury is the public official responsible for keeping an eye on domestic and international monetary and financial policy. The following Secretaries of the Treasury are members of the Council on Foreign Relations; Robert B. Anderson(Eisenhower), Douglas C. Dillion (Kennedy/Johnson), Henry Hamill Fowler (Johnson), David M. Kennedy (Nixon), William Edward Simon (Nixon/Ford), W. Michael Blumenthal (Carter), G. William Miller (Carter) James A. Baker 3rd (Reagan), Nicholas F. Brady (Reagan/Bush).  The National Security Council provides intelligence support to the Secretary of the Treasury. The nature of the support, is classified. The support insures the Department of the Treasury acts in accord with recommended national security policy and makes its full contribution to the attainment of national security objectives and to the particular climate of opinion the United States is seeking to achieve in the world.  This opinion is formulated by Council on Foreign Relations members working in an ad hoc committee called the "Special Group" and through a vast intragovernmental undercover infrastructure called the "Secret Team". The "Special Group" and "Secret Team" insure that a well coordinated economic warfare campaign weakens non-Round Table Member controlled companies and benefits Round Table Member controlled companies in the United States and in other nations.  Even the most knowledgeable Treasury officials don't understand the role of the National Security Council in international monetary and financial policy. The "Special Group" and the "Secret Team" hide so-called national security objectives behind a veil of secrecy. This is because these objectives are in the best interest of the Round Table Group members, not in the best interest of the American public.  In 1969 Paul Volcker became Undersecretary for Monetary Affairs in the Nixon administration. Volcker's boss was Secretary of the Treasury David Kennedy. In his book Changing Fortunes, Volcker writes;"On inauguration day I sat down in my new office in the Treasury...A memorandum arrived from the White House with, as I recall it, the title of "National Security Study Memorandum Number Two." I clearly had not been on the list for Number One but, after all, Number Two was not bad. I didn't really know what a National Security Study Memorandum was in those days, but since it was signed by Henry Kissinger on behalf of the president, it was obviously something to be taken seriously.  The memorandum described administrative and other arrangements for the conduct of international monetary affairs by the new administration. It designated the Undersecretary for Monetary Affairs - the position to which I would be nominated - to chair an inter-agency committee on the subject. The previous administration had such a group, so that was no striking new initiative, but it was nice for me to have my bureaucratic position confirmed. The memo also said that in that capacity I should report to Henry Kissinger at the National Security Council. That was unusual news to me, being in the Treasury Department. I went running to Secretary Kennedy's office and said, "You'd better take care of this quick, because it seems to cut you out of the loop." He was not very close to Mr. Nixon at the time, and I sensed his hesitation about what to do. I always suspected he just ignored that part of the directive, because that's certainly what I did. Henry Kissinger had other things to worry about during those days. Besides, one of his stable of assistants, Fred Bergsten, was a member of the inter-agency group, and I knew he was fully capable of keeping Henry informed. I never heard another word about it, and I suspect papers on the intricacies of international monetary affairs ended up at the bottom of Kissinger's in-tray, assuming they ever got that far. But it was to me an interesting lesson in bureaucratic one-upmanship. Kissinger had been designated to his position many weeks earlier, had a staff in place, access to the president, and an instinct to make good use of his head start." David M. Kennedy, Paul A. Volcker, Henry A. Kissinger, and Fred C. Bergsten are all Council on Foreign Relations members.  On 21 of September 1964, a congressional Subcommittee on Domestic Finance, Committee on Banking and Currency, Chaired by Wright Patman, issued a report entitled Money Facts - 169 Questions and Answers on Money - A Supplement to A primer on Money. One fact is "Congress has never given authority for determining money policy to the Federal Reserve System - and certainly not to a committee within the system containing members who owe their selection to private bank interest." Yet, this is exactly what has happened. The Federal Reserve System, the banks that own it, and the governmental agencies involved with the monetary policy have something in common -- many of their executives are members of the Council on Foreign Relations.  Alan Greenspan, Paul Volcker, G. William Miller, and William McChesney Martin have all chaired the Federal Reserve board. All are members of the Council on Foreign Relations. As of September 1993, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that handling losses in failed savings and loan institutions would cost $120 billion from 1990 through 1998 (this figure does not include $60 billion spent before 1989). The Congressional Budget Offices underestimated. To date (1996) losses in failed savings and loan institutions have cost American citizens $500 billion dollars. Very few of the individuals responsible for the "losses" have been punished including sons of Council on Foreign Relations members George Bush and Lloyd Benson.  In 1987 leaders of America's major banks went to Tokyo. They met with our finance minister and governor of the central bank. They urged more positive cooperation by Japanese banks. The big American banks were caught in the dilemma of their Latin American Debt. On the one hand, they had to suffer the losses caused in part by their own overlending, which meant they could not continue being exposed to new loans to Latin America. On the other hand, they were unable to jettison Latin America, which for them was an important market. The leaders of the banks attending the meeting were John Reed of Citibank, Willard Butcher of Chase, Lewis Preston of Morgan, and Tom Clausen of the Bank of America. Reed, Butcher and Preston are all members of the Council on Foreign Relations.  The United States Code contains the general and permanent laws of the United States. The United States Code is prepared and published by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives. The laws have been classified into fifty categories. A category is called a Title. For example, laws pertaining to the President are found in Title 3 The President. Title 12 is called Banks and Banking. A reading of laws contained in Title 12 back up the statement that Congress has not given authority for determining money policy to the Federal Reserve System.  Title 50 War and National Defense clearly spells out such a role for the Federal Reserve. Title 50 Section 101 is the National Security Emergency Preparedness Policy. In this policy in Part 15 - Department of the Treasury in Section 1501 Lead Responsibilities we find that "the Secretary of the Treasury shall: (1) Develop plans to maintain stable economic conditions and a market economy during national security emergencies; emphasize measures to minimize inflation and disruptions; and minimize reliance on direct controls of the monetary, credit, and financial systems. These plans will include provisions for: (a) Increasing capabilities to minimize economic dislocations by carrying out appropriate fiscal, monetary, and regulatory polices and reducing susceptibility to manipulated economic pressures; (b) Providing the Federal Government with efficient and equitable financing sources and payment mechanisms."  Has the Federal Reserve been acting as if we have been in a perpetual National Security Emergency? Has the federal reserve been fine tuning the economy of the United States and advertising that it had the legal powers to do so when it really does not? If the Federal Reserve bank had these responsibilities spelled out in Title 12 Banks and Banking wouldn't Title 50 merely reference those sections that state these responsibilities? Allen Greenspan, head of the Federal Reserve, Clinton's Economic Advisor Laura Dandrea Tyson, Clinton's International Security Advisor Lynn Etheridge Davis (who is also a Vice President of Chase Bank) and President Bill Clinton are all Council on Foreign Relations members.  Is the destiny of the American people being controlled by a group who have and hold the power to direct the credit policy of our nation. A group that has circumvented the check and balance safe-guards built into the system to prevent any one group from having this kind of power over the American citizen. A group whose self-proclaimed drive is for personal profit and who lack the honesty and integrity to make decisions based on public good.  Are Council on Foreign Relations members furthering a plan for a world order based on an economy of unrest? Are Council on Foreign Relations members subtle fascists intently interested in private ownership of property, under their control? Did the Council on Foreign Relations instigate and perpetuate the cold war? Did they do this to accumulate and protect Council holdings? Was this done by establishing and maintaining the most powerful U.S. military establishment in peacetime history? Is the next stage in the plan to co-opt and divide eastern Europe and the rest of the world? Is the next stage in the plan for powerful World-Wide military establishment of "volunteer" military forces under UN command in the role of Peacekeepers? Was detonation of the first nuclear bomb, in Alamogordo New Mexico, on July 16, 1945, in a field test code-named Trinity, the Council's subtle way of sounding the deathbell for Jefferson's Trinity of inalienable rights?  The Joint Chiefs of Staff have defined psychological operations (PSYOPS) as those that: "include psychological warfare and, in addition, encompass those political, military, economic and ideological actions planned and conducted to create in neutral or friendly foreign groups the emotions, attitudes, or behavior to support achievement of national objectives." Another proposal "develops the concept of 'strategic psychological operations' as aimed at influencing and shaping decision-makers' power to govern or control their followers." Wake up America, we the American people, are among the groups being targeted and controlled.  Council on Foreign Relations members in the State Department, The National Security Council, the Central Intelligence Agency, and in the Department of Defense continue to control the lives of the American people through well planed psycho-political operations. These psychological operations rob American citizens of the present, by creating false reality worlds. These false reality worlds are created to trick the American public into acting not in their own best interest but in the best interest of a group of subtle fascists intent on creating one world order under their control.  Title-50 War and National Defense - 783 states - "It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to combine, conspire, or agree with any other person to perform any act which would substantially contribute to the establishment within the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship, the direction and control of which is to be vested in, or exercised by or under the domination of control of, any foreign government."  The Council on Foreign Relations are in violation of Title-50 War and National Defense - 783. The Council on Foreign Relations has unlawfully and knowingly combined, conspired, and agreed to substantially contribute to the establishment of one world order under the totalitarian dictatorship, the direction and the control of members of Council on Foreign Relations, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, and members of Round Table branch organizations in various nations throughout the world.  In the 60's a youngster named Joan Baez objected to her tax money being spent on War. She protested. She was arrested and forced to pay her taxes for a cause she felt was unjust. Ms. Baez did a very brave thing. Ms. Baez's demonstration offers a way to shift governmental control back to the people -- "trickle up taxes." There would be only one tax, a flat income tax. There would be no hidden taxes such as business taxes, sales taxes or value added taxes. Each taxpayer would know exactly how much taxes they had to pay. Rather than corporations withholding taxes from workers, the worker would receive all their salary. At the end of the year the worker would receive a tax package. It would contain (1) a detailed account of the budget and how the "tax payers dollar" was spent during the the current financial year; and (2) a proposed budget and spending plan for the next financial year. The budget and spending plans would be broken down into broad areas indicating the percentage of a tax payer dollar being spent on programs in each area ( 1. federal 2. state 3. county and 4. local ).  Each area would be broken down into broad categories showing how the tax money was distributed. For example the Federal budget and spending plan for 1995 was 1.4 Trillion dollars distributed in the following way: 1. Defense(20%,$270 billion), 2. Welfare Employment and Retirement (17%, $220 billion), 3. Social Security (24%, $328 billion), and 4. Interest on the Debt (16%, $214 billion) 5. Science and Space (1%, $17 billion), 6. Environment (1.5%, 21 billion), 7. Agriculture (1%, 12 billion), 8. Transportation (3%,39 billion), 9. Education (4%, 15 billion), 10. Law Enforcement (1%, 17 billion), 11. Veterans (2.5%, 36.6 billion), and 12. Health (w/o Medicare) (9%, 122 billion). The percents are the portion of one "tax payer" Federal Dollar spent on each Federal program. The dollar amounts are the total number of taxpayer dollars spent on all programs in each category. Similar breakdowns would supplied for state programs, county programs, and local programs. Detailed breakdowns on a per program basis would be provided.  The taxpayer would receive a proposed budget and spending plan for the next financial year in a form of a worksheet. Each tax payer would have one "tax dollar" to distribute in each area. If the taxpayer's "tax dollar" could not cover all the budgeted expenses (at the local, county, state, and federal levels) the tax payer would decide which programs budgets to cut. A tax-payer could also redistribute portions of their tax payer dollars from one are to another (i.e. a tax-payer could redistribute Federal tax dollars to State programs that were underfunded). If the tax payer had a new program they could fund it with a percentage of their "tax dollar" redistributing percentages of their "tax dollar" from local, state, county and federal programs as needed.  For example, suppose the proposed Federal budget was the same as the 1995 Budget outlined above. If a taxpayer felt it was important to pay off the debt they might submit the following federal budget 1. Defense(0%), 1. Payment of Debt (20%, $270 billion) 2. Welfare Employment and Retirement (17%, $220 billion), 3. Social Security (24%, $328 billion), and 4. Interest on the Debt (16% $214 billion) 5. Science and Space (1%, $17 billion), 6. Environment (1.5%, 21 billion), 7. Agriculture (1%, 12 billion), 8. Transportation (3%,39 billion), 9. Education (4%, 15 billion), 10. Law Enforcement (1%, 17 billion), 11. Veterans (2.5%, 36.6 billion), and 12. Health (w/o Medicare) (9%, 122 billion).  This tax-payer re-distributed the percentage of their "tax dollar" from Defense to a new category -- Payment of the debt. The tax-payer could also offer an explanation of their proposed budget change. This tax-payer might say that since the cold war was over a large defense budget was not only unnecessary but weakening the country economically and making it vulnerable to potential enemies. If the suggested proposal was adopted the debt would eventually be retired (about $4.5 Trillion in 1995) and both the new category Paying off the Debt (24%, $270 billion) and the category Interest on the debt (16%,$214 billion) would no longer be needed in the budget. The taxpayer could then decide how to re-distribute that portion of the tax money, or even lower the tax burden by $484 billion per year.  Today we have about 115 million Americans employed (76% of all men over 16 years old and 58% of all women over 16 years old). Each American fills out a tax form that is sent to the government. The tax form has no influence on how their tax dollar is spent. This system of taxation would be abolished. Trickle up taxes would be instituted and carried out as an educational exercise in all local schools (public, private, and parochial). School children at all grade levels would participate. The taxpayers would receive three envelopes. They would send a check for taxes owed in one envelope. This would be a flat percentage of the tax payer's income. The amount would include local, county, state, and Federal tax dollars. They would put the proposed budget and spending plan worksheet in the second envelope. The budget and spending plan worksheet would not have the tax payers name on it - it would be a colorless, raceless, religionless, sexless and ageless "tax distribution idea form." The tax payer would put the two envelopes into a third envelope and mail it to their local school. The envelopes would be sorted. The results from the "tax distribution idea forms" would be compiled, summarized and distributed to the taxpayers. The taxpayer would learn which programs received adequate funding, and which programs did not. The taxpayer would receive a list of new programs proposed by taxpayers. Those programs receiving adequate taxpayer support would be started. Money from those programs that did not receive adequate funding would be held in escrow until the taxpayers decided what to do.  The experience would be rewarding, educational, and enlightening for everyone. The entire community would share in a educative experience that would effect their social environment in a most democratic way. If a person didn't wish to participate their "tax dollar" would be trickled up according to the percentages decided upon by their neighbors. Everyone would have exactly four "tax dollars" to distribute, and therefore, be equal with everyone else. If one person had a unique idea that appealed to a majority of American citizens the majority of Americans could be swayed to accept the idea of this minority of one, change their current way of thinking, adopt the new idea, and trickle it up. This would happen at the local, county, state, and Federal levels. Legislation such as a balanced budget, questionable Energy choices such as Nuclear, and maintaining huge defense budgets in time of peace, would be trickled up through the people, rather than trickled down to them, in a manner whose legality, source, and intent is questionable.  This procedure would be followed each year. Each year the taxpayer could review new programs proposed the previous year which might include more efficient ways of spending the tax dollar. The taxpayer would decide what percentage of their tax dollar was spent at the local, county, state, and federal levels giving the tax payer control over how and where their money is spent. The experience would allow the 300 million American citizens to trickle up a budget and plan for their public servants to follow. Public servants wouldn't have the pressure of solving all of America's problems, and couldn't be influenced by any small group, or tempted by a wealthy lobbyist. Problems would be solved by the American citizen. This would be a true form of absolute democracy, wherein each American would have the opportunity to participate. This would be in line with the Jeffersonian concept of a popular government and would provide protection of the rights of the individual against arbitrary action of public officials.

Spy school
================================

In 1944 a group of statesmen founded The Paul H. Nitze School. of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). At least one, Paul H. Nitze, was a Council on Foreign Relations(CFR) member. The resident SAIS faculty includes 36 professors. At least 20 are CFR members, two are CFR fellows.

Council on Foreign Relations members in an ad hoc committee called the "Special Group" and through a vast intragovernmental undercover infrastructure called the "Secret Team" plan and coordinate massive psychological operations scripted using "Tactics of Deception." American citizens and citizens of foreign nations are manipulated to accept the particular climate of opinion the groups are seeking to achieve in the world. Is SAIS a cover for Council on Foreign Relations "Special Group" and "Secret Team" members and covert operator training school?1

CFR member Nitze, Graduated cum laude from Harvard in 1928. He joined Dillon, Read and Co., a New York investment banking firm. In 1944 he went to Washington to join the war effort. He became Financial Director of the Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs. Born in Amherst, Massachusetts, Nitze was married to the late Phyllis Pratt. They had four children. He is now married to Elisabeth Scott Porter. CFR member Nitze's legal residence is in Washington, D.C. He has a second residence in Bel Alton, Maryland. Council on Foreign Relations headquarters is The Harold Pratt House 58th E. 68th Street, New York, NY.2

CFR Member Nitze's vita reads:

1953-61 President Foreign Service Educational Foundation, Washington D.C.

1947-53 Various positions with the Department of State,

1947 Deputy Director of the Office of International Trade Policy.

1948 Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Economic Affairs.

1949 Deputy Director of the State Department's Policy Planning Staff,

1950 Director State Department's Policy Planning Staff

1961-63 Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs.

1963-67 57th Secretary of the Navy

1967-69 Deputy Secretary of Defense.

1969-74 US Delegation to the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks with the Soviet Union.

1981-84 Headed Arms Control Talk Negotiating Team

1984-89 Special Advisor Arms Control to Sec. of State and President.

President Reagan appointed him Ambassador-at-Large, the position in which he served until his retirement. Nitze has been diplomat-in-residence at SAIS since retiring from the State Department on April 30, 1989.3

When a CFR member tries to make a difference it is a difference designed to create tension between two or more target groups. In 1993 Nitze published a book titled TENSION BETWEEN OPPOSITES: REFLECTIONS ON THE PRACTICES AND THEORY OF POLITICS. Is Nitze really retired, or has he assumed another cover for his role in the "Special Group" that co-ordinates State Department Psychological Operations focused at Americans and citizens of other nations?4

CFR member Zbigniew Brzezinski is SAIS Robert E. Osgood Professor of American Foreign Policy. CFR members: Brzezinski (Public Law and Government Professor, Columbia ); Frederick C. Barghoorn (Political Science Professor, Yale ); and George A. Kelly (Politics Professor, Brandeis ); contributed to THE ART AND SCIENCE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL OPERATIONS. The book contains a series of case studies sponsored by the US Department of the Army.

CFR member Paul Wolfowitz, Ph.D. is SAIS Chairman and Dean. Prior to joining SAIS as dean in 1994, Wolfowitz taught at the National Defense University as a visiting distinguished fellow.5

Other Council on Foreign Relations SAIS faculty members are: Fouad Ajami (Majid Khadduri Professor and Director of Middle East Studies), A. Doak Barnett (Professor emeritus of Chinese Studies), Frederick Brown (Fellow, Foreign Policy Institute and Adjunct Professor Southeast Asian Studies Program), Charles Doran (Andrew W. Mellon Professor of International Relations and Director of Canadian Studies), Isaiah Frank (William L. Clayton Professor of International Economics), Francis Fukuyama (Director of the SAIS Telecommunications Project and Fellow, Foreign Policy Institute), Charles Gati (Fellow, Foreign Policy Institute), Christian Herter (Professorial Lecturer in International Relations), David M. Lampton, Ph.D.(George and Sadie Hyman Professor of China Studies and Director of China Studies), Michael Mandelbaum (Christian A. Herter Professor and Director of American Foreign Policy), Steven Muller (Fellow, Foreign Policy Institute), Donald Oberdorfer (Journalist-in-Residence, Foreign Policy Institute), George Packard (Edwin O. Reischauer Professor and Director of the Reischauer Center for East Asian Studies), Riordan Roett (The Sarita and Don Johnston Professor and Director of Latin American Studies), Hederick Smith (Editor-in-Residence, Foreign Policy Institute), S. Frederick Starr (Chairman, Central Asia Institute), I. William Zartman (Jacob Blaustein Professor of International Organizations and Conflict Resolution and Director of African Studies). The two Council on Foreign Relations Fellows on the SAIS faculty are Andrew J. Bacevich and Wilford L. Kohl.

When SAIS opened 15 students were enrolled. SAIS became a division of Johns Hopkins University in 1950. By 1963, SAIS outgrew its first quarters on Florida Avenue, Washington, DC, and moved to one of its two present buildings on Massachusetts Avenue. By 1995, more than 8,600 men and women had graduated from SAIS. They are now working in 143 countries. Are these graduates covert operators?

SAIS Alumni are employed by the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, and State, and Office of the U.S. Trade Representative  President William J. Clinton, Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, Secretary of Health Education and Welfare Donna E. Shalala and Director of the CIA John Deutch are all Council on Foreign Relations members.

SAIS maintains centers in Bologna, Italy, and Nanjing, China. The Bologna center was founded in 1955. "The student body is composed of some 150 to 170 university graduates. About 45 percent of the students come from the United States, 45 percent from Europe, and the remaining 10 percent from Canada and countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The Bologna Center presently has 4,221 alumni representing 88 nationalities. They hold positions of importance in the public and private sectors of their respective countries--in foreign ministries and other government agencies, international and regional organizations, multinational corporations, banks and other financial institutions, non-profit organizations, journalism, and research centers and universities around the world."7

Is SAIS a school for Intelligence Agents and Covert Operators? Do SAIS graduates work for American and foreign intelligence agencies? Are alumni of the Hopkins Bologna Center and Hopkins-Nanjing Center Foreign intelligence agents? Do these intelligence agents participate in psycho-political operations and covert operations that further the aims of the United States Council on Foreign Relations and its branch organizations in other nations?

The Hopkins-Nanjing Center was established in 1968. It is located in the Peoples Republic of China "in Nanjing City, the capital of Jiangsu Province in the Yangtze River delta. The Center facility is adjacent to the campus of Nanjing University. The Chinese students live with graduate students from the United States and other countries who take courses from Nanjing University faculty in Mandarin Chinese. The Hopkins-Nanjing Center is the only American educational institution with a permanent physical presence in China."8

The Center's American students who held jobs before their time in Nanjing have worked for such employers as the Beijing Trade Exchange in Washington, D.C., the CBS News Bureau in Beijing, The Los Angeles Times, The Dow Chemical Company, General Electric Company, the Voice of America, the U.S. Army, U.S. Peace Corps, The Asia Society, Citibank, and the American Enterprise Institute.9

The American Enterprise Association was founded in 1943. It latter changed its name to the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. In 1979 the American Enterprise Institute began publishing a magazine called Public Opinion. 10 The American Enterprise Institute advertises itself to be a nonpartisan, nonprofit, research and educational organization based in Washington D. C. "The institute conducts seminars and conferences, and publishes books and periodicals. The AEI's research is carried out under three major programs: Economic Policy Studies; Foreign Policy and National Security Studies; and Social and Political Studies. " The American Enterprise Institute has a network of resident scholars and fellows. The network includes over ninety adjunct scholars at leading universities throughout the United States of America and in several foreign countries. Do these AEI scholars monitor the effectiveness of CFR psyops on University Students and report this information to the AEI as part of the Institutes Public Policy Research program?11

The last issue of Public Opinion was the May/June issue published in 1989. Nine people were on the Public Opinion Editorial Board. Five were Council on Foreign Relations members (David R. Gergen, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, Irving Kristol, William Schneider, and Richard J. Whalen). 12 The Board of Trustees of the American Enterprise Institute had twenty-six members. Six were Council on Foreign Relations members: Willard C. Butcher (Chairman. and CEO Chase Manhattan Bank), Robert Anderson (Chairman. of the Executive Committee Rockwell International Corp. ), Paul W. McCracken (Edmund Ezra Day University Professor Emeritus University of Michigan), Edmund T. Pratt, Jr. (Chairman CEO Pfizer, Inc. ), Richard D. Wood (Chairman of the Board Eli Lilly and Co. ), and Walter B. Wriston (Former Chairman of Citicorp).13

The Chinese Institute of Pacific Relations is the CFR's branch in china. It runs Chinese government and industry. In April of 1989 the Chinese Government demonstrated the great lengths it would go to to retain its workers. Students camped out in Beijing's Tiananamon Square protesting economic and political corruption in Chinese Government. Over 100,000 students and workers marched. Twenty other cities in China saw similar protests. Martial law was imposed. Army troops crushed protests in Tiananamon Square. Death toll estimates were between 500-7000. Ten thousand people were injured. Ten Thousand dissidents were arrested. Thirty-one dissidents were tried and executed.

Did the Hopkins-Nanjing Center help plan, develop, and carry out a psycho-political operation that resulted in Tiananamon Square? Was Tiananamon Square engineered to get rid of well educated, intelligent students, who might interfere with Council on Foreign Relations plans for taking control of the People's Republic of China?

A group called the The Hopkins-Nanjing Council includes CFR members President George Bush (Honorary Chairman), Ambassador Arthur Hummel (Co-Chairman), and Morris W. Offit (CEO OFFITBANK). The Chairman of the Development committee is Russell S. Passarella, Senior Vice President, of The Chase Manhattan Private Bank. The Chase Manhattan Bank, is run by the Rockefeller Family. David Rockefeller Jr., David Rockefeller Sr., John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV, Rodman Clark Rockefeller, and Nelson Rockefeller (deceased) all belong to the Council on Foreign Relations. Council on Foreign Relations member Lynn Etheridge Davis, CFR member President Clinton's, International Security Advisor, is a Chase Manhattan bank Vice President..14

The Hopkins-Nanjing Partnership are a group of individuals and Foundations who gave money to the SAIS The Hopkins-Nanjing Center. Gifts range from $10,000 to over one million. Council on Foreign Relations member David Rockefeller is listed as a Hopkins-Nanjing "Supporter" for supplying a gift of $10,000 or more. The Council on Foreign Relations directed Ford Foundation is listed as a "Benefactor" who donated between $250,000 and $1,000,000.15

In the 1950s a the Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie foundations gave the Council on Foreign Relations $2.5 million grant.[12]16

After World War II covert foreign policy became State Department standard operating procedure. The Ford Foundation became a major player in funding covert activities. In 1948 the Air Force set up Rand Corporation to perform classified research. The Council on Foreign Relations medcine, munitons, food, and media industries had access to the research through their Intelligence Connections. Taxpayer funded research could be easily turned into Council on Foreign Relations member and insider profits.17

The interlocks between the trustees at Rand, and the Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie foundations were so numerous that the Reece Committee, a congressional committee tasked with investigating the foundations, listed them in its report (two each for Carnegie and Rockefeller, and three for Ford). In 1952 alone, when the chairman of Rand was also the Ford Foundation president, Ford gave one million dollars to Rand. 18

Conspicuously absent from The Reece Committee report were the links between the Foundations to the Council on Foreign Relations. In his book "A THOUSAND DAYS"(1965), CFR member Arthur Schlesinger, Jr, provides the link. Schlesinger writes "the American Establishment," whose "household deities were Henry L. Stimson and Elihu Root; its present leaders [1965], Robert A. Lovett and John J. McCloy; its front organizations, the Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie Foundations and the Council on Foreign Relations; its organs, the New York Times and Foreign Affairs...."[11]19

Schlesinger's account leaves out the link between CFR foundation directors and officers and US Intelligence agencies. In his book Carroll Quigley, is guilty of the same oversight. In his book TRAGEDY AND HOPE , Quigley writes about the establishment of an American branch of the British Royal Institute of International Affairs. The American branch, is the Council on Foreign Relations. Missing from Quigley's history is that the founding members were also members of the first US intelligence organization, known as the INQUIRY.[a]20

Quigley's first book, The ANGLO-AMERICAN ESTABLISHMENT was written in 1949. No one would publish it until 32 years after Quigley died. Quigley writes, "The [Royal] Institute [of International Affairs] was organized at a joint conference of British and American experts at the Hotel Majestic on 30 May 1919. At the suggestion of Lord Robert Cecil, the chair was given to General Tasker Bliss of the American delegation. We have already indicated that the experts of the British delegation at the Peace Conference were almost exclusively from the Milner Group and Cecil Block. The American group of experts, "the INQUIRY," was manned almost completely by persons from institutions including universities dominated by J.P. Morgan and company."

This is disinformation -- a "tactic of deception" used to shift the readers focus away from more important information. While many of the INQUIRY members were connected to the J.P. Morgan company, they were also the first US Intelligence agents and covert operators. Missing from Quigley's history, is that the INQUIRY was the first American Intelligence organization. The INQUIRY was organized and run by Edward Mandel House, Woodrow Wilson's close political advisor. Missing from Quigley's history is that the INQUIRY drafted most of Wilson's 14 points. The only group that can profit from keeping this information secret is the Council on Foreign Relations. If Council on Foreign Relations members have participated in psycho-political operations focused a American Citizens and weakened America economically so that the CFR controlled international empire could profit they have committed treason. A staggering 5.5 Trillion Dollar Debt is evidence of this betrayal of trust. Shouldn't traitors be tried and executed?21

Since its inception, almost every important figure in American foreign policy, both covert and overt, has been closely involved with the Council on Foreign Relations. The Ford Foundation was deeply involved in covert actions in Europe during the early years of the Cold War, working closely with Marshall Plan (a PSYOP run by CFR members Dean Achenson, Walter Lippmann, and George Kennan) and CIA officials on specific projects. CFR member Richard Bissell was a Ford Foundation staff member in 1953, when he left suddenly to became a special assistant to the director of the CIA.[b]22 When the Congress for Cultural Freedom was exposed as CIA-funded in 1967, Ford took over its funding.[c]23 In the early 1960s, Ford was involved in training Council on Foreign Relations members in Indonesia.[d]24

One such member was McGeorge Bundy. Bundy was not unusual in Council on Foreign Relations circles: Yale degree in 1940, army intelligence during World War II, policy analyst for the Council on Foreign Relations from 1948-49, Harvard dean from 1953-61, special assistant to the President for national security from 1961-66 (during the buildup in Vietnam), president of the Ford Foundation from 1966-79, and with Carnegie from 1990 until his death in 1996.[e]25 His brother William P. Bundy was at the CIA from 1951-61, and edited the CFR journal Foreign Affairs from 1972-84.[f]26

The covert side of Rockefeller Foundation receded after CFR member Nelson Rockefeller's death in 1979. Nelson, with the help of Hoover's FBI, was in charge of all U.S. intelligence in Latin America during World War II. After the war he artfully meshed his spook connections with his far-flung monopoly interests. His associate in Brazil, Col. J. C. King, became CIA chief of clandestine activities in the Western Hemisphere. When Nelson Rockefeller was appointed by CFR member Eisenhower to the National Security Council in 1954, his job was to approve various covert operations. This is when Nelson began his long association with CFR member Henry Kissinger.

During the 1950s, Rockefeller Foundation helped the CIA fund their MK-ULTRA mind control research, and supported early efforts to legitimize Ngo Dinh Diem as the leader of South Vietnam. Cold War heavies CFR member John J. McCloy and Robert A. Lovett were Rockefeller trustees. In 1950, OSS veteran Charles B. Fahs became head of the Foundation's division of humanities. His assistant there, another OSS veteran named Chadbourne Gilpatric, came to Rockefeller Foundation directly from the CIA. [g] 27

Up to 1961 every Secretary of State except Cordell Hull, and James Byrnes, were members of the Council on Foreign Relations. The undersecretaries, almost to a man, were also Council on Foreign Relations members. Secretaries of state have frequently been foundation officers. CFR member Dean Rusk went from the State Department after the war, to the presidency of the Rockefeller Foundation from 1952-60, and then back to State for eight years as secretary. [h] 28 CFR member John Foster Dulles was a trustee at Rockefeller while chairman at Carnegie.29 [i] Other secretaries of state from the foundations included Edward R. Stettinius, Jr., Henry L. Stimson, Frank B. Kellogg, and Charles Evans Hughes.30 [j]

In the 1950's Psychological operations, were coordinated by a Governmental agency called the Psychological Strategy Board. The architect of the Psychological Strategy Board was Gordon Gray. Gray had a consultant named Henry Kissinger. Kissinger was the paid political consultant to the Rockefeller family. Gordon Gray, Henry Kissinger, and many members of the Rockefeller family belonged the Council on Foreign Relations. On Thursday 26 July 1951, President Truman would tell the press that the Psychological Strategy board was a part of the Central Intelligence Agency. 31

In the book 1984 Big Brother controlled the people by invading their privacy and using psychological manipulation to control and change reality through conscious deception, deliberate lying, and an official ideology that abounded in contradictions. Council on Foreign Relations and Royal Institute of International Affairs members employ the same techniques to control people -- including their fellow countrymen.

Hadley Cantril and Lloyd Free were Princeton University Social Psychologists; researchers; and members of the intelligence community. Council on Foreign Relations Member Nelson Rockefeller funded them to develop psycho-political policy strategies and techniques. Council on Foreign Relations Member Edward R. Murrow, would, with Rockefeller Foundation Funding conduct a research project to perform a systematic analysis of Nazi radio propaganda techniques and the political use of radio. This study would result in a world wide monitoring and broadcasting Government agency called the Foreign Broadcast Intelligence Service (FBIS).

The FBIS would become the United States Information Agency (USIA). The USIA was established to achieve US foreign policy by influencing public attitude at home and abroad using psycho-political policy strategies. The USIA Office of Research and reference service prepares data on psychological factors and propaganda problems considered by the Policy Planning Board in formulating psycho-political information policies for the National Security Council.

The Psychological Strategy Board became the renamed super-powered Operations Coordinating Board (OCB). The OCB had a vague ambiguous name that didn't provoke curiosity. It had more members than the Psychological Strategy board. It had the same mission, to use psychological strategy, propaganda, and mass media, to manipulate huge groups of individuals. It had a psychological warfare machine -- the United States Information Agency at its disposal. The USIA would be responsible for foreign policy propaganda for the NSC.

The National Security Council is responsible for recommending national security policy. The President for having the policy approved. The Operations Coordinating Board for coordinating interdepartmental aspects of operational policy plans to insure their timely and coordinated execution.

The National Security Council's recommended national security policy is the de facto foreign policy of the United States.The Department of State's Policy Planning Board scripted the policy for the NSC. The USIA Office of Research and Reference service prepared data on psychological factors and propaganda problems. The Policy Planning Board used the data in formulating psycho-political information policies for the NSC. In 1955 the Director of the USIA became a voting member of the Operations Coordinating board; USIA representatives were invited to attend meetings of the NSC Planning Board; and the USIA Director was invited to Cabinet meetings. 32

From 1950-1953 CFR member Nitze directed the Department of State Policy Planning Board. Nitze and crew scripted psycho-political operations for the National Security Council.33 SAIS Chairman and Dean Paul Wolfowitz, . also directed the Department of State Policy Planning Board. Wolfowitz was undersecretary of defense during CFR member George Bush's administration and served as assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs. He authored PRESERVING PEACE IN THE NUCLEAR AGE (1983) and numerous articles on political science, economics and defense issues. Are the books, documentaries, and articles produced by SAIS faculty and alumni Department of State propaganda meant to trick, manipulate, and brainwash Americans into accepting Council on Foreign Relations doctrine?

The latest warnings from the Council on Foreign Relations members who planed and directed a PSYOP called Mutually ASSured Destruction (MAD) include warnings of some rogue nation terrorizing the United States with a thermonuclear device. In 1994 CFR member William Clinton's administration began using this threat as an excuse to return America to a state of perpetual National Security. Such a state is necessary for the Federal Reserve board to legally control interest rates. If a nuclear tragedy ever happens it will be due to a Council on Foreign Relations run covert operation.34

On 19 February 1961, President John F. Kennedy issued a Statement abolishing the Operations Coordinating Board:

"I am today issuing an Executive Order abolishing the Operations Coordinating Board. This Board was used in the last Administration for work which we now plan to do in other ways. This action is part of our program for strengthening the responsibility of the individual departments. First, we will center responsibility for much of the Board's work in the Secretary of State. He expects to rely particularly on the Assistant Secretaries in charge of regional bureaus, and they in turn will consult closely with other departments and agencies. This will be our ordinary rule of continuing coordination of our work in relation to a country or area."

Second, insofar as the Operations Coordinating Board - as a descendent of the old Psychological Strategy Board - was concerned with the impact of our actions on foreign opinion - our "image" abroad - we expect its work to be done in a number of ways; in my own office, in the State Department, under Mr. Murrow of USIA, and by all who are concerned with the spirit and meaning of our actions in foreign policy. We believe that appropriate coordination can be assured here without extensive formal machinery.

Third, insofar as the Operations Coordinating Board served as an instrument for ensuring action at the President's direction, we plan to continue its work by maintaining direct communication with the responsible agencies, so that everyone will know what I have decided, while I in turn keep fully informed of the actions taken to carry out decisions. We of course expect that the policy of the White House will be the policy of the Executive Branch as a whole, and we shall take such steps as are needed to ensure this result.

I expect the senior officials who served as formal members of the Operations Coordinating Board will still keep in close and informal touch with each other on problems of common interest. Mr. Bromley Smith, who has been the Executive Officer of the Operations Coordinating Board, will continue to work with my Special Assistant, Mr. McGeorge Bundy [Bundy was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations ], in following up on White House decisions in the area of national security. In these varied ways we intend that the net result shall be a strengthening of the process by which our policies are effectively coordinated and carried out, throughout the Executive Branch.""

Kennedy's executive order didn't dissolve the Operations Coordinating Board, it made it invisible. The OCB became an ad hoc committee called the "Special Group." In The CIA File, author David Wise writes, "In The Invisible Government, published in 1964, Thomas B. Ross and I disclosed for the first time the existence of the "Special Group," the interagency government committee customarily cited by intelligence officials as the principal mechanism for control of covert operations. The special Group was also known during the Eisenhower years as the 54/12 Group and has been periodically renamed as the 303 committee - after a room number in the Executive Office Buildings - and during the Nixon administration, it acquired the name "Forty Committee. "... It was this committee to which Allen Dulles was referring when he wrote in a now famous statement, 'The facts are that the CIA has never carried out any action of a political nature, given any support of any nature to any persons, potentates or movements, political or otherwise, without appropriate approval at high political level in our government outside the CIA. '" 35

In 1975, Philip Agee, in the CIA DIARY, links the "Special Group" to the Operations Coordinating Board. A box on an organization chart writes, "Operations Co-ordination Board (OCB) (later renamed the 54-12 Group, The Special Group, the 303 group and the 40 Committee) Director of Central Intelligence, Under Secretary of State, Deputy Secretary of Defense are ad hoc members. "36

Air Force Intelligence Officer L. Fletcher Prouty writes, "During the Eisenhower years the NSC, which at times was a large and unwieldy body, was reduced for special functions and responsibilities to smaller staffs. For purposes of administering the CIA among others, the NSC Planning Board was established. The men who actually sat as working members of this smaller group were not the Secretaries themselves. These men are heads of vast organizations and have many demands upon their time. This means that even if they could attend most meetings, the essential criteria for leadership and continuity of the decision making-process simply could not be guaranteed. Thus the sub-committee or special group idea was born, and these groups were made up of men especially designated for the task. In the case of the Special Group, called by many codes during the years, such as "Special Group 5412/2," it consists of a designated representative of the President, of the Secretary of State, of the Secretary of Defense, and the Director of The Central Intelligence Agency in person. This dilution of the level of responsibility made it possible for the CIA to assume more and more power as the years went by, as new administrations established their own operating procedures, and the control intended by the law became changed."37 Prouty is understating what "this dilution did" -- it made it impossible to dissolve the Special Group.
 
 
 

The groups to which one belongs create powerful barriers to manipulation and outside control. Resistance to propaganda arise from the existence of group norms in which attitudes are anchored. People reject or accept a persuasive message according to whether or not it will cause them to deviate from the norms of their family, work group, or faith. An effective psychological warfare technique for weakening your targets resistance to manipulation and outside control is attacking and destroying their faith.

In TRAGEDY AND HOPE, Quigley writes about a British philosophical doctrine called "rationalization." It appeared at the end of the 19th Century, the same time the Rhodes-Milner secret society was formed. According to Quigley, rationalization, "was first used ... to solve problems of mass production, and led, step by step, to assembly-line techniques in which regulated quantities of materials (parts), power, labor, and supervision were delivered ... to produce a continuous outflow of some final product...Naturally, such a process serves to dehumanize the productive process and, since it also seeks to reduce every element in the process to a repetitive action, it leads eventually to an automation in which every supervision is electronic and mechanical."

Quigley explains, "From the basically engineering problem of production, rationalization gradually spread into the more dominant problem of business. From maximizing production, it shifted to maximizing profits. ...As in so many other innovations, the introduction of rationalization into war was begun by the British and then taken over on an enormous scale, by the Americans. Its origin is usually attributed to the efforts of Professor P. M.S. Blackett (Nobel Prize 1948) to apply radar to antiaircraft guns. From there Blackett took the technique into antisubmarine defense whence it spread, under the name 'Operational Research' into many aspects of the War effort..First news of the success of Operations Research in Britain was brought to the United States by President Conant in 1940 and formally introduced by Vannevar Bush, as chairman of the New Weapons Committee of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in 1942. By the end of the war, the technique had spread extensively through the American war effort, and with the arrival of peace, became an established civilian profession. The best known example of this is the RAND Corporation, a private research and development firm, under contract to the United States Air Force..."

Quigley continues, "A great impetus has been given to rationalization of society in the postwar world by...new developments...The newest of these was probably game theory, worked out by a Hungarian refugee mathematician, John von Neumann, at the Institute for Advanced Study. This applied mathematical techniques to situations in which persons sought conflicting goals in a nexus of relationships governed by rules...The basic work in the new field was the book Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, by John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern (Princeton 1944)...These, and related techniques, are now transforming methods of operation and behavior in all aspects of life and bringing on a large-scale rationalization of human life which is becoming one of the most significant characteristics of Western Civilization in the twentieth century."4 Among Von Neumann's colleagues were Einstein, Oppenheimer, and Council on Foreign Relations members George F. Keenan, and Abraham Pais. Pais became Einstein's biographer. The Institute for Advanced Studies at Princeton was part of a power structure established between the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London and US Council on Foreign Relations that "would penetrate deeply into university life, the press, and the practice of foreign policy..."

Quigley tells us "the mobilization of rationalization under the Office of Scientific Research and Development and the National Defense Research Committee by those two Massachusetts Yankees, Bush and Conant, is one of the miracles of the war." Quigley's got it wrong, given the amount of American tax-payer dollars Bush and Conant were in control of ($460 million), the miracle would have been not mobilizing "rationalization." In the 1940's $460 million dollars could get a lot of scientists mobilized to "rationalizing" the suffering death and destruction of countless millions of human beings -- especially if the scientists were the ones paid to research, produce, and study the war machines,and not the ones paid to use the wars machines.

Conspicuously absent from Quigley's study of "rationalization" is the role of Psychological Warfare in Operations Research. Between 1951-58 the Johns Hopkins University Operations Research Office, Baltimore Maryland, compiled a selection of psychological warfare case studies. Morris Janowitz, a prominent Army Psychological Warfare Division staff member suggested the project. The casebook would be used to train individuals assigned to the field of international communications and psychological warfare. Dr. Janowitz worked at the Institute fur Sozialforschug and the University of Michigan.

William E. Daugherty lead the effort. During World War II Daugherty worked in US Marine Intelligence. Daugherty was responsible for ad hoc improvisations in psychological warfare within the division's zone of action on Okinawa. In 1951 the Director of the Johns Hopkins University Operations Research Office assigned Daugherty to assist the Eighth US Army in implementing a revitalized and expanded psychological warfare program in Korea.

The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Maryland published "A Psychological Warfare Casebook" in 1958. In the preface Daugherty writes, "The Preparation of this casebook was undertaken by the Operations Research Office as the third in a series of three manuals (other two: ORO-T-324, "The Nature of Psychological Warfare," and ORO-T-222, "Target Analysis and Media in propaganda to Audiences Abroad") designed to serve as training guides and reference sources for personnel assigned to or interested in psychological warfare planning and operations. Although this casebook was prepared primarily to meet the particular needs of Army personnel, it early became evident that it would be impracticable to dissociate the foreign propaganda activities of psychological warfare personnel in the Army from those in the Navy and Air Force and from such civilian agencies as the World War II Office of War Information (OWI) or the present-day US Information Agency (USIA). Thus "psychological warfare" as defined and used in this study, is an all-inclusive term. As used in this casebook the term encompasses both peacetime and wartime activities and is designed to support both military and political operations..."

In the Acknowledgements Daugherty writes,"Throughout the many months it has taken to collect, organize, and tailor the accounts appearing in this casebook the Office of Chief of Special Warfare (previously the Office of the Chief of Psychological Warfare), US Army, has frequently and continuously expressed an interest in the early completion of the work. The initial planning for this casebook was undertaken during the period that the late Maj Gen Robert A. McClure served as Chief of Psychological Warfare (1951-1953). This work was brought to a conclusion during the tour of duty of Brig Gen William C. Bullock as Chief of Psychological Warfare (1953-1956)..."

The Johns Hopkins University Operations Research Office "Psychological Warfare Casebook" was reviewed by the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air force, the Department of State, the US Information Agency, the Human Resource Office - George Washington University, and RAND Corporations Social Science Division. Among the reviewers was Dr. Paul M. A. Linebarger, Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), Johns Hopkins University. Daugherty writes, "Although the term "psychological warfare" gained wide acceptance in military circles in World War II its usage in postwar literature came into being slowly...the first American author to use the term formally as the title of a book was Professor Paul M. A. Linebarger..."10 The Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies was established by Council on Foreign Relations founding father Christian Herter and CFR member Paul Nitze.

In 1936 Hadley Cantril and DeWitt Poole founded a publication called Public Opinion Quarterly. Harwood Childs was editor, Cantril was associate editor. Poole was a State Department expert in anti-communist propaganda. Poole became chief of the Foreign Nationalities Branch of the Office of Strategic Services. Poole directed OSS efforts to recruit agents from immigrant communities. The agents analyzed foreign language publications and spied on their neighbors.

The Public Opinion Quarterly board of editors included veteran psychological warfare experts Harold Lasswell, Paul Lazarsfeld and Frank Stanton. DeWitt Poole, would become president of the National Committee for a Free Europe, one of the CIA's largest single propaganda efforts. CFR member Stanton directed the Free Europe Fund, a CIA proprietary corporation, that laundered the money for Poole's National Committee psycho-political operations.

The CIA Office of General Counsel is a specialized CIA support unit. The General Counsel is the legal adviser to the CIA. The General Counsel establishes proprietary corporations for the CIA. In intelligence jargon a proprietary company is a corporation ( aka a "devised facility") set up for a clandestine operation. Legal relationships, handled by the General Counsel included contracts, leases, or other obligations. The CIA Office of General Counsel is made up of Council on Foreign Relations "Wall Street and Washington Bankers and Lawyers." These bankers and corporation lawyers make wonderful second-story men.

CIA proprietary corporations have evolved into "legitimate" businesses controlled by the CIA. They sell stock, have stockholders, produce a product, make a profit, have loses; however, they hire both civilian workers and CIA operatives and analysts. The CIA insiders are a small minority -- only about 100-200 CIA operatives are needed to control a 10,000 person organization. Very few of the 10,000 employees are aware of the 100-200 CIA operatives in their midst. CIA and Justice department lawyers handle the proprietary corporations legal affairs. CIA and Justice Department accountants keep the proprietary corporations books. Many of these accountants work for the big accounting houses. The proprietary corporation has largely replaced the Foundation as a source of income for covert operations -- carried out abroad and on American citizens at home.

The CIA operatives and analysts lead double lives. They double as operatives and analysts as needed. Otherwise they perform their civilian activities. Many of the covert operations carried out by the operatives that work in these corporations are covert operations against American citizens. Some of the CIA operatives have no idea what is really going on. They are kept from seeing the big "picture." The need for the secrecy is "national security."

Harold Lasswell carried out the first detailed descriptive studies of major propaganda campaigns, focusing on the communications issued by national elites during World War I and by totalitarian movements that tried to influence the masses during the great depression. Lasswell formulated a set of theoretical categories for analyzing the effects of persuasive communications and initiated development of systematic techniques of content analysis. Paul Lazarsfeld worked out new methods for investigating the impact of mass media on voting behavior and beliefs, judgments, and values of the mass audience. Using poll data from US election campaigns and surveys of public reactions to radio programs Lazarsfeld and his colleagues described the complex communication networks and cross pressures in modern society. Their studies (Lazarsfeld et. al. 1944; Katz & Lazarsfeld 1955) highlight the influential role of local opinion leaders, who function as "gatekeepers" by promoting or rejecting evaluative judgments transmitted in the mass media by political parties, business organizations, public welfare authorities, and intellectuals.

Council on Foreign Relations member Walt Whitman Rostow studied at Yale, became a Rhodes scholar, studied at Ballliol College at Oxford (1936-1938). In 1940 Rostow returned to Yale and received a PHD. Rostow joined the Office of Strategic Services after Pearl Harbor. He worked for the OSS research and analysis branch on studies of the Soviet Economy. After the war Rostow returned to England and taught American History at Oxford. In the 50's Rostow returned to the US to teach at MIT. Was Rostow doubling as an intelligence operative and analyst as needed?

After World War II, the Ford Foundation became a major player in funding covert foreign policy operations. The institute most involved in classified research was RAND Corporation, set up by the Air Force in 1948. The interlocks between the trustees at RAND, and the Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie foundations were so numerous that the Reece Committee listed them in its report (two each for Carnegie and Rockefeller, and three for Ford). Ford gave one million dollars to RAND in 1952 alone, at a time when the chairman of RAND was simultaneously the president of Ford Foundation. Conspicuously absent from the Reece committee report were the interlocks between the Council on Foreign Relations and trustees at RAND, and the Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie foundations.

In the 50's the CIA established the Center for International Studies (CENIS) at MIT. Assistant CIA Director Max Millikan directed CENIS. CFR member Rostow joined CENIS and became a paid National Security Council consultant for CFR member Eisenhower.16 In the mid-50's the Ford Foundation gave CENIS $850,000 for communications research. A planning committee chaired by Hans Speier directed the research. Speier was the RAND Corporation's director of social science and research.

John's Hopkins University Operations Research Office Psychological Warfare Casebook reviewers included Council on Foreign Relations members, Drs. W. Phillips Davison and Alexander George of RAND Corporations Social Science Division. Davison had been chief of the Special Defense Unit Propaganda Analysis, German Subsection during WWII. Davison was on staff to the US Department of Justice, and the Psychological Warfare Division of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Forces of the Office of Strategic Services. From 1948-1950 CFR member Davison edited PUBLIC OPINION QUARTERLY.

In the spring of 1956 and the fall of 1958 PUBLIC OPINION QUARTERLY published two special editions devoted to articles on psychological warfare studies. Ithiel de Sola Pool and Frank Bonilla edited the 1956 edition; Daniel Lerner the 1958 edition. Pool, Bonilla, and Lerner worked for CENIS. The 1956 edition was titled "Studies in Political Communications." The 1958 edition was titled "Attitude Research in Modernizing Areas." Desegregation of schools in Little Rock, Arkansas, was a CENIS "Attitude Research" study.

During WWII James P. Warburg was Deputy Director of the Overseas Branch of the Office of War Information. Warburg was also Special Assistant to the Director of the Coordinator of Information. Warburg was a banker and author. Warburg contributed to the Johns Hopkins University Office of Operations Research Psychological Warfare Casebook. In UNWRITTEN TREATY (1946), Warburg writes,

"It cannot be stated with sufficient emphasis that information is one thing - propaganda quite another.

The purpose of spreading information is to promote the functioning of man's reason.

The purpose of propaganda is to mobilize certain of man's emotions in such a way that they will dominate his reason...

In 1959, Public Opinion Quarterly published an article by CFR member W. Phillips Davison titled "On the effects of Communication." Davison's article reduces the purpose of communication to a collection of sleight of mind techniques for manipulating an audience to mobilize man's emotions so as to dominate his reason. Davison writes,

"The communicator's audience is not a passive recipient - it cannot be regarded as a lump of clay to be molded by the master propagandist ...[The audience] must get something from the manipulator if he is to get something from them. A bargain is involved. Sometimes, it is true, the manipulator is able to lead his audience into a bad bargain...But audiences, too, can drive a hard bargain..."

Understatement is a sleight of mind technique used by a master propagandist. Davison understates the master propagandist's effectiveness. The master propagandist is expert at leading his audience into a bad bargain. The master propagandist is expert at creating a reality world in which his audience will be manipulated not to act in their own best interest but in the best interest of the propagandist. Included in Davison's examples of how "communications can lead to adjustive behavior." are the overseas studies of Hadley Cantril and Lloyd Free.

Hadley Cantril and Lloyd Free were Princeton University Social Psychologists, researchers, and members of the intelligence community. CFR member Nelson Rockefeller funded them to develop psycho-political policy strategies and techniques. Free was one of the first "country team" Public Affairs Officers. In 1947 Free was Special assistant to the Director of the State Department's Office of International Information.

In "How Nations See Each Other." (1953) Cantril writes about a tool to investigate people's perception of their nationality and other nationalities. The tool became known as the Buchanan-Cantril "Adjective Check List." It contained twelve adjectives: Hard-working; Intelligent; Practical; Generous; Brave; Progressive; Self-Controlled; Peace-Loving; Conceited; Cruel; Domineering; Backward. It was based on the observation people tend to ascribe to their group a set of characteristics different from those ascribed to other groups. The resulting self-image is predominantly flattering, while their picture of "others" is strongly influenced by how much they perceive those others to be like themselves. The relative "similarity" or dissimilarity" between group stereotypes is a useful indicator of the degree of like or dislike between groups or nations.

The Council on Foreign Relations War and Peace Studies Peace and Aims Group used the Buchannan-Cantril "Adjective Check-List" to "investigate the claims of different European nations, the relationship between the individual national claims, and their bearing both on current foreign policy of the United States and on the eventual postwar settlement.." Members of the Peace and Aims team would question "competent political and economic representatives of a particular nation or group of nations [who] presented their aims and aspirations." The Adjective "Check-List" was used to learn about a nations self-image, and its perception of other nations; their friends and foes and America's friends and foes. This information was supplied to the Council on Foreign Relations run State Department. They used it to script carefully planned psycho-political operations focused at target nations manipulating their actions and adjusting their behavior to obtain Council on Foreign Relations goals. The United States of America was among nations targeted.

Walter Lippmann was a member of the first US Intelligence Organization the INQUIRY, attended the Paris Peace Conference, and was a founding father of the Council on Foreign Relations, the American branch of the Institutes of International Affairs. Lippmann advocated a society in which a small group of elites would rule by controlling public opinion. Chapter I, of Lippmann's book, PUBLIC OPINION is titled "The World Outside and the Pictures in Our Heads." Lippmann, writes,

"I argue that representative government, either in what is ordinarily called politics, or in industry, cannot be worked successfully, no matter what the basis of election, unless there is an independent, expert organization for making the unseen facts intelligible to those who have to make the decisions...My conclusion is that public opinions must be organized for the press if they are to be sound, not by the press as is the case today. This organization I conceive to be in the first instance the task of a political science that has won its proper place as formulator, in advance of real decision, instead of apologist, critic, or reporter after the decision has been made..."

Harold Lasswell was an intelligence agent, political scientist, and professor at Yale Law School. Lippmann's arguments appealed to Lasswell. Shortly before World War II the Rockefeller Foundation funded the Research Project On Wartime Communication. The Library of Congress coordinated the project. Among the researchers was Harold Lasswell. Regarding the project Lasswell writes, "The Library project had several responsibilities; to perfect tools of research on mass communication; to recruit and train personnel for service agencies in propaganda, information, and intelligence; to advise on matters of strategy, tactics, and organization; to describe and analyze certain phases of the history of the war crisis."

A byproduct of the Research Project on Wartime Communication was a book by Lasswell and Abraham Kaplan. Kaplan was a UCLA philosophy professor. The book was titled POWER AND SOCIETY A FRAMEWORK FOR POLITICAL INQUIRY. Among the books reviewers were Nathan Leites, and Joseph M. Goldsen research director at the Library of Congress. Leites and Goldsen worked for RAND corporation.

Lasswell's definition of power is, "Power is participation in the making of decisions: G has power over H with respect to values K if G participates in the making of decisions affecting the K-policies of H." His definition of policy is, "The social process is the totality of value processes for all values important in the society... Policy is a projected program of goal values and practices; the policy process in the formulation, promulgation, and application of identifications, demands, and expectations concerning future interpersonal relations of the self...the exercise of influence (influence process) consists in affecting policies of others than the self. To have influence is to occupy a high position (and potential) with respect to all the values important in the society. Influence is exercised when its possession affects the interpersonal relations of those (other than self) active in the shaping and enjoyment of the values..."

Lasswell defines rationalization as, "The pragmatization of practices is the maximizing of their economy with respect to all the values of the actors. Rationalization of practices is their technicalization and pragmatization. We speak of practices and institutions as pragmatized in the degree that means and ends are reciprocally determined so as to maximize the total values in the situation. Rationalization (Zweckrationalizierung) involves not only a maximal realization of values, but also that the adaptation of means and ends to one another be achieved through expediencies. For example, if religious doctrines impose sanctions for the utilization of certain materials, practices in accord with those doctrines are not rationalized, though they may be pragmatized in relation to the religious values. Rationalization, in short, requires that the only restrictions imposed on practice be those set by non cultural conditions (biological and environmental) for the attainment of goals."29 In short "rationalization" is a philosophy for maximizing profits based upon the doctrine that the ends justify the means, no matter what the cost to others.

Lippmann presents a graphic view of what a society controlled by an "independent, expert organization" would become. It is presented as a preface to his book PUBLIC OPINION, contained in a quote from the Republic of Plato, Book Seven,

"Behold! human beings living in a sort of underground den, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all across the den; they have been here from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them; for the chains are arranged in such a manner as to prevent them from turning round their heads. At a distance above and behind them the light of a fire is blazing, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have before them, over which they show the puppets.

I see, he said.

And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall carrying vessels, which appear over the wall; also figures of men and animals, made of wood and stone and various materials; and some of the prisoners, as you would expect, are talking, and some of them are silent.

This is a strange image, he said, and they are strange prisoners.

Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave?

True, he said: how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads?

And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would see only the shadows?

Yes, he said.

And if they were able to talk with one another, would they not suppose that they were naming what was actually before therm?"

A society controlled by an "independent, expert organization," arranging chains of bondage from childhood by corrupting the societies knowledge base, and deciding what shadows to project on the wall, would be a society of prisoners that couldn't use their heads to act in their own best interest. They would become a society of slaves living in a realm of fear.

Before World War II Richard H. S. Crossman was an Oxford professor. During the war Crossman was Deputy Director of Britain's Psychological Warfare Branch, Armed Forces Headquarters, North Africa. After the war Crossman became a Labor Party member of the British House of Commons. Crossman was a John's Hopkins University Operations Research Office Psychological Warfare Casebook contributor. Daugherty writes,"Britishers as well as Americans viewed Crossman as one of the outstanding if not the leading propagandist of World War II...In February 1952 Crossman addressed the British Royal United Service Institution on the topic of Psychological Warfare...in Crossman's own words'...the object of psychological warfare is to do certain things to the enemy: first to demoralize him; secondly...to undermine his beliefs; and thirdly to begin the process of indoctrination."

People's actions are strongly influenced by their knowledge base. People act on their beliefs. You can manipulate a person's actions by corrupting their knowledge base; by warping historical truth; or ignoring it completely. Knowledge can make for independence if it helps people meet their world more confidently and realistically. Those who have wanted others to remain dependent have always recognized this fact and have opposed the spread of knowledge. They include those who felt the Bible must not be read by the people; those who made laws against teaching slaves to read and write; and those who kept the plans of a monster like Hitler a secret for more than 14 years.

In his second letter Peter warns, "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not." [II Peter 2:1-3]

Religious values are about acting rationally, acting intelligently, not rationalizing profits made at the expense of another. Intelligence is analyzing a problem to determine what has to be done, designing different solutions to solve the problem and evaluating the solutions to chose the best one. All religions have rules and guidelines of acting intelligently. Acting intelligently is acting in ones own best interest and at the same time acting in the best interest of all. The Laws of God provide rules and guidelines for acting intelligently. The Laws of God include The Ten Commandments, The Teachings of Buddha, and the Laws of Mohammed.

The Golden Rule is the simplest and most elegant rule for acting intelligently. The Golden Rule was discovered by at least three human beings. Confucius and Mohammed taught, don't do to others that which you wouldn't have others do to you. Christ taught do unto others that which you would have others do unto you. Using the Golden Rule to help drive your decisions helps you follow all the rules and guidelines handed down by God. No creature anywhere can simplify the Golden Rule, making human beings amongst the most intelligent creatures in the universe. Applying the Laws of God reward our actions with a better future. Our tomorrows will be less full of problems and guilt created by making poor choices in the past. Our neighbors tomorrows will be less full of problems we created for them. Living by the Laws of God rewards us with a more fulfilling and joyous life here on earth and an eternal life after death.

Lasswell and Lippmann are among the false prophets Peter warns against. Lasswell's advice is a rationalization to abandon the rules and guidelines handed down by God to maximize profits. Lasswell's advice is to live by a philosophy in which the ends justify the means no matter what the cost to others. Lasswell's advice is irrational and immoral. Lasswell's suggestion that the "only restrictions imposed on practice be those set by non cultural conditions (biological and environmental) for the attainment of goals." is heresy.

Ironically Lasswell cites John Dewey's work, Human Nature and Conduct, as Lasswell's reason for choosing the term pragmatism and using it in his definition of rationalization. It was Dewey's belief that culture ( shared habits, or "custom") not only enables us to act in the environment but defines the environment in which we act. Divorcing aspects of human culture, such as religious beliefs, from actions for the attainment of a goal, such as maximizing profit, would make us inhuman.

Nothing so aroused Dewey's scorn as psychological dogma that humans are naturally passive and must be compelled to act. In Human Nature and Conduct, Dewey provides a graphic description of the men of the elite who Lasswell and Lippmann, suggest should be allowed to manipulate and control the lives of others. Dewey writes, "Meantime there are certain "practical" men who combine thought and habit and who are effectual. Their thought is about their own advantage; and their habits correspond. They dominate the actual situation. They encourage routine in others, and they also subsidize such thought and learning as are kept remote from affairs. This they call this sustaining the standard of the ideal. Subjection they praise as team-spirit, loyalty, devotion, obedience, industry, law-and-order. But they temper respect for law - by which they mean the order of the existing status - on the part of others with most skillful and thoughtful manipulation of it in behalf of their own ends. While they denounce as subversive anarchy signs of independent thought, of thinking for themselves, on the part of others lest such thought disturb the conditions by which they profit, they think quite literally for themselves, that is, of themselves. this is the eternal game of the practical men. Hence it is only by accident that the separate and endowed "thought" of professional thinkers leaks out into action and affects custom."

In POWER AND SOCIETY Lasswell references the works of a number of American and British scholars. Among the British scholars is George E. G. Catlin, who wrote, "Politics, as a theoretical study, is concerned with the relations of men, in association and competition, submission and control, in so far as they seek, not the production and consumption of some article, but to have their way with their fellows...What men seek in their political negotiations is power."

Catlin is wrong, what human beings seek in their political negotiations is freedom. Thomas Jefferson made the "Golden Rule" the foundation of American Democracy by changing John Locke's Natural rights law from Life, Liberty, and Property to the inalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The change insures that decisions are driven by civic virtue instead of selfishness. The change probably resulted from Jefferson's understanding of the "Golden Rule" and a struggle Jefferson had with slavery. The original draft of the Declaration of Independence contained a scathing denunciation of slavery.34 Jefferson's change declares it immoral and illegal to consider one person the property of another. If you would be unhappy being someone else's property it follows it is wrong to consider another person your property. If the original draft of the Declaration of Independence had been approved there would have been no slavery after the revolution of 1776. The original draft was not approved, slavery was not abolished, and a civil war was fought leaving a legacy of bitterness in America still felt today.

The Laws of God are much more powerful than the laws of man. The laws of man coerce compliance through fear of punishment. The laws of God encourage application through the promise of reward. The laws of man can be unfair and unfairly applied. A guilty person may escape punishment and an innocent person may be punished. The laws of man can profit one group at the expense of another. Unjust laws may encourage criminal behavior. Unjust laws may make an innocent person a criminal. Unjust laws may legislate breaking the Laws of God. The laws of man are costly to legislate and costly to apply. The laws of man attempt to remove criminals from society. Large groups of human beings must waste their lives in a bureaucratic, tension filled environment attempting to administer, apply, and carry out the punishment associated with a particular crime. Larger groups of human beings must provide the money for this costly bureaucratic framework. The laws of man are a poor substitute for the laws of God. When in doubt between the laws of God and the laws of man the wisest choice is to faith it.

Peter warned of false prophets that would through covetousness and deceit make slaves of us. John Dewey warned against evil men whose thought is about their own advantage;and whose habits correspond. What Peter and John Dewey failed to warn about was a secret society of evil men operating covertly undermining their neighbors religious beliefs to demoralize, indoctrinate, and enslave them. Perverting the values of society by mobilizing their neighbors emotions, dominating their reason, and encouraging them to disobey the Laws of God. Evil men of high position misusing their influence to rationalize, legalize, and encourage, through word and deed, adultery, promiscuity, gender confusion, and even the murder of ones own child as a victimless act and a constitutional right to privacy.

False prophets expert at leading their audience into a bad bargain. Reducing the purpose of communication to a collection of sleight of mind techniques for manipulating their neighbor. Creating tension, hatred, and fear by bearing false witness to their neighbors about their neighbors maintaining a state of eternal war -- a state of controlled insanity. Dehumanizing their neighbors and turning them into chattel to be used in the continuous outflow of products of war. Maximizing false profits from an economy of death and destruction. False profits justified by a dogma called "rationalization" or "operations research" based upon the notion that the ends justify the means no matter what the cost to others.

The men of Lippmann's and Lasswell's elite include the men of the Council on Foreign Relations and trustees at RAND, and the Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie foundations. Men that financed and researched "Rationalization" and performed Operations Research studies including planning and participating in psycho-political operations designed to maintain a worldwide state of perpetual conflict and war to maximize Council on Foreign Relations profits from munitions, medicine, food, energy, and media industries. Profits maximized by enslaving and dehumanizing the American worker.

The Reece Committee Foundation investigation, Church Committee's investigation of US intelligence abuses, the Rockefeller Committee investigation of CIA abuses(1975), and the Iran-Contra Affair Investigation (1985) provide proof that overlooking interlocks between the Council on Foreign Relations and the groups under investigation has become investigative committee standard operating procedure. Interlocks include Council on Foreign Relationship members assigned to each investigative committee. Isn't that conflict of interest? Isn't that illegal? Shouldn't the investigations be reopened?

Janet Reno refuses to assign an independent prosecutor to investigate her boss, Council on Foreign Relations member Bill Clinton. Reno is a close friend of Clinton's director of Health, Education and Welfare CFR member Donna Shalala.

Title-50 War and National Defense - 783 states -

"It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to combine, conspire, or agree with any other person to perform any act which would substantially contribute to the establishment within the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship, the direction and control of which is to be vested in, or exercised by or under the domination of control of, any foreign government."

If a group is organized on a dictatorial basis; with so close an identity between the group and its policies and the governmental polices of the country in which it exists; that the group and the government constitute an indistinguishable unit; and that group suppresses all opposition to such a group; then a totalitarian dictatorship exists. If the people can not use the Executive, Judicial or Congressional Branches of its government to carry out their wishes and enforce their laws then they have lost control of their government.

The Council on Foreign Relations are in violation of Title-50 War and National Defense subsection 783. The Council on Foreign Relations has unlawfully and knowingly combined, conspired, and agreed to substantially contribute to the establishment of one world order under the totalitarian dictatorship, the direction and the control of members of Council on Foreign Relations, Institute of International Affairs, and Institutes of Pacific Relations, and Institutes of International Relations whose members are from various nations throughout the world.

If you visit Dumbarton Oaks you will see a Latin parable at the head of the dedicatory inscription and carved elsewhere in the gardens. The parable is -- "Quod Severis Metes" -- "As ye sow, so shall ye reap." It would be wise for Council on Foreign Relations members and members of Congress to heed that parable. In 1776 Jefferson told Americans what to do when their inalienable Rights of Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness are jeopardized, "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.."

It is time for Congress to impeach Clinton and all Council on Foreign Relations members in government. Congress must formally accuse the Council on Foreign Relations members of their wrong doing and bring them before the proper tribunal. If Congress is unwilling to act it is time for the American people to follow Jefferson's advice.

CFR membership or involvement on the committees: Rockefeller Committee ( CFR Nelson Rockefeller (Chairman); Church Committee ( CFR members David Aaron (to aide to CFR member Walter Mondale and Mondale's personal designee to the committee; Lynn Etheridge Davis presently CFR member Clinton's International Security Advisor, authored the initial Draft of of the Church Committee's report dealing with the NSC) [ Source Keepers of the Keys, John Prados, pg 386]; In 1986 two secret U.S. Government operations were publicly exposed implicating Reagan Administration officials in illegal activities. These operations became known as the Iran-Contra Affair. A seven year investigation costing millions of dollars ensued. Only one person spent time in prison - he was found guilty of not paying his income taxes. The Office of Independent Counsel's report states "it is important to emphasize that both the Iran and contra operations, separately, violated the United States policy and law." Lawrence E. Walsh was Independent Counsel. In 1969 Walsh worked with CFR member Kissinger at the meetings on Vietnam in Paris. In 1981 Walsh worked for Crowe and Dunlevy a law firm representing Oil Companies, Air Lines, and Insurance Companies run by CFR members. Was the Walsh investigation designed to give the appearance that justice was served while in effect being a clever way of obstructing justice? Was the Walsh investigation part of a sophisticated "limited hangout"? Did CFR media members, lawyers, and judges, all profit monetarily from the publicity generated under the pretense of doing something important, while justice went unserved and the guilty went free? CFR members George Bush, Elliot Abrams, Casper Weinberger, Robert M. Gates, William J. Casey, and Robert C. McFarlane advised Reagan to go ahead with Iran-Contra. On December 24, 1992, Bush pardoned fellow CFR members Weinberger, McFarlane, Abrams, and three CIA chiefs named Fiers, George, and Clarridge. Isn't there a conflict of interest apparent in this pardon? Isn't advising the President to break the law Treason? Why weren't the people involved charged with Treason? Have members of the intelligence community that belong to the CFR gained control of the US government? CFR members William S. Cohen (R-ME) and George J. Mitchell (D-ME), served on a non-partisan Joint House and Senate Select Committee that investigated Iran-Contra. They co-authored a book about Iran-Contra. Book reviewer R. F. Drinan ( America Mr 4 '89) writes, "The impact of this book is blunted by Cohen and Mitchell's extensive efforts to avoid making tough judgments of witnesses who were obviously lying or evading committee member's questions..." Stephen Engelberg NY Times Book Rev (pg 36 S 25 '88) writes, "This book includes some well-etched portraits of the players in the Iran-contra affair." Conspicuously missing from these well-etched portraits is how the players, including the committee members Cohen and Mitchell, are connected through the CFR. Cohen and Mitchell titled their book Men of Zeal. A more accurate title would be Greedy Heels Who Lie, Cheat, and Steal.
 
 

The Council on Foreign Relations was formally established in Paris in 1919 along with its British Counterpart the Royal Institute of International Affairs. The Council on Foreign Relations and Royal Institute of International Affairs can trace their roots back to a secret organization founded and funded by Cecil Rhodes, who became fabulously wealthy by exploiting the people of South Africa. Rhodes is the father of Apartheid.

The Council on Foreign Relations was founded by a group of American and British imperialists and racists intent on ruling the world. Many of the American members were American intelligence officers that belonged to the first American Intelligence Agency -- THE INQUIRY. Many of the British members were British Intelligence Agents. THE INQUIRY and its members, who included such notable Americans as Col. Edward Mandel House, Walter Lippmann, Isaiah Bowman, and James Shotwell, wrote most of Woodrow Wilson's 14 points.

The CFR/RIIA method of operation is simple -- they control public opinion. They keep the identity of their group secret. They learn the likes and dislikes of influential people. They surround and manipulate them into acting in the best interest of the CFR/RIIA.

The Council on Foreign Relations, and the Royal Institute of International Affairs are adept at using the media to create massive psycho-political operations used to manipulate public opinion. The psycho-political operations are often designed to create tensions between different groups of people. The object is to keep the world in a state of perpetual tension and warfare to maximize profits from CFR/RIIA munition, medicine, media, energy, and food businesses.

The CFR has only 3000 members yet they control over three-quarters of the nations wealth. The CFR runs the State Department and the CIA. The CFR has placed 100 CFR members in every Presidential Administration since Woodrow Wilson. They work together to misinform and disinform the President to act in the best interest of the CFR not the best interest of the American People. At least five Presidents (Eisenhower, Ford, Carter, Bush, and Clinton) have been members of the CFR. The CFR has packed every Supreme court with CFR insiders. Three CFR members (Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and Sandra Day O'Connor) sit on the supreme court. The CFR's British Counterpart is the Royal Institute of International Affairs. The members of these groups profit by creating tension and hate. Their targets include British and American citizens.

The 100 CFR members that surround the president are "the Secret Team." The "Secret Team" help carry out psycho-political operations scripted by CFR members in the state department and the Intelligence Organizations. The psycho-political operations are coordinated by a group of Council on Foreign Relations members called the Special Group. The Special Group evolved from the Psychological Strategy Board.

President Truman issued an executive order establishing the Psychological Strategy Board. The Board was run by CFR members Gordon Gray and Henry Kissinger. The PSB has close ties to the State Department and Intelligence Organizations. The purpose of the PSB was to co-ordinate psycho-political operations. Many of those operations were focused at Americans. The people became wary of the Psychological Strategy Board. Eisenhower issued an executive order changing its name to the Operations Coordination Board. The OCB was a bigger more powerful PSB. Gray and Kissinger ran the OCB too. President Kennedy abolished the OCB. It became an ad hoc committee called the "Special Group," which exists today. The PSB/OCB/Special Group always has CFR members running and sitting on it. Since the Special Group was not formed by Executive Order it cannot be abolished.

On September 12, 1939, the Council on Foreign Relations began to take control of the Department of State. On that day Hamilton Fish Armstrong, Editor of Foreign Affairs, and Walter H. Mallory, Executive Director of the Council on Foreign Relations, paid a visit to the State Department. The Council proposed forming groups of experts to proceed with research in the general areas of Security, Armament, Economic, Political, and Territorial problems. The State Department accepted the proposal. The project (1939-1945) was called Council on Foreign Relations War and Peace Studies. Hamilton Fish Armstrong was Executive director.

In February 1941 the CFR officially became part of the State Department. The Department of State established the Division of Special Research. It was organized just like the Council on Foreign Relations War and Peace Studies project. It was divided into Economic, Political, Territorial, and Security Sections. The Research Secretaries serving with the Council groups were hired by the State Department to work in the new division. These men also were permitted to continue serving as Research Secretaries to their respective Council groups. Leo Pasvolsky was appointed Director of Research.

In 1942 the relationship between the Department of State and the Council on Foreign Relations strengthened again. The Department organized an Advisory Committee on Postwar Foreign Policies. The Chairman was Secretary Cordell Hull, the vice chairman, Under Secretary Sumner Wells, Dr. Leo Pasvolsky ( director of the Division of Special Research) was appointed Executive Officer. Several experts were brought in from outside the Department. The outside experts were Council on Foreign Relations War and Peace Studies members; Hamilton Fish Armstrong, Isaiah Bowman, Benjamin V. Cohen, Norman H. Davis, and James T. Shotwell.

In total there were 362 meetings of the War and Peace Studies groups. The meetings were held at Council on Foreign Relations headquarters -- the Harold Pratt house, Fifty-Eight East Sixty-Eighth Street, New York City. The Council's wartime work was confidential.17

In 1944 members of the Council on Foreign Relations The War and Peace Studies Political Group were invited to be active members at the Dumbarton Oaks conference on world economic arrangements. In 1945 these men and members of Britain's Royal Institute of International Affairs were active at the San Francisco conference which ensured the establishment of the United Nations.

In 1947 Council on Foreign Relations members George Kennan, Walter Lippmann, Paul Nitze, Dean Achenson, and Walter Krock took part in a psycho-political operation forcing the Marshall Plan on the American public. The PSYOP included a "anonymous" letter credited to a Mr. X, which appeared in the Council on Foreign Relations magazine FOREIGN AFFAIRS. The letter opened the door for the CFR controlled Truman administration to take a hard line against the threat of Soviet expansion. George Kennan was the author of the letter. The Marshall Plan should have been called the Council on Foreign Relations Plan. The so-called Marshall Plan and the ensuing North Atlantic Treaty Organization defined the role of the United States in world politics for the rest of the century.

In 1950 another PSYOP resulted in NSC-68, a key cold war document. The NSC (National Security Council) didn't write it -- the Department of State Policy Planning Staff did. The cast of characters included CFR members George Kennan, Paul Nitze, and Dean Achenson. NSC-68 was given to Truman on April 7, 1950. NSC-68 was a practical extension of the Truman doctrine. It had the US assume the role of world policeman and use 20 per cent of its gross national product ($50 billion in 1953) for arms. NSC-68 provided the justification -- the WORLD WIDE COMMUNIST THREAT!

NSC-68 realized a major Council on Foreign Relations aim -- building the largest military establishment in Peace Time History. Within a year of drafting NSC-68, the security-related budget leaped to $22 billion, armed forces manpower was up to a million -- CFR medicine, munition, food, and media businesses were humming again. The following year the NSC-68 budget rose to $44 billion. In fiscal 1953 it jumped to $50 billion. Today (1997) we are still running $300 billion dollar defense budgets despite Russia giving up because it went bankrupt.

America would never turn back from the road of huge military spending. Spending that included the purchase of radioactive fallout on American citizens in the 50's, and buying thermonuclear waste from the Russians as we approach the year 2000. Spending resulting in a national debt of $5.5 Trillion Dollars that continues to grow, and interest payments of over $270 billion a year. Is the Council on Foreign Relations trying to make the United States economically vulnerable to influence from outside sources? Isn't that treason?

THE INQUIRY, the PSB/OCB/Special group, the War and Peace Studies, the "X" Affair, and NSC-68 have had tremendous historical impact. Yet these events and the role played by the Council on Foreign Relations in sponsoring and carrying out the events are missing from our History books. You represent the people. Can you explain to me why the Council on Foreign Relations role in History has been left out of the History books? Why don't we learn about them in High School History courses? Why don't History majors in college learn about the Council on Foreign Relations?

If you want to learn about the CFR try the following:

TRAGEDY AND HOPE: HISTORY OF THE WORLD IN OUR TIME by Carroll Quigley. Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time. NY: MacMillan, 1966. 1348 pages.

THE ANGLO-AMERICAN ESTABLISHMENT by Carroll Quigley. NY: Books in Focus, 1981.

THE HUMAN DIMENSION: EXPERIENCES IN POLICY RESEARCH by Hadley Cantril, Rutgers Univ Press, 1967.

THE WAR AND PEACE STUDIES OF THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS 1939-1945, The Harold Pratt House 58th E. 68th Street, NY, 1946

THE ART AND SCIENCE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL OPERATIONS: Case Studies of Military Application Vol. 1 and 2, Pamphlet No. 725-7-2, DA Pam 525-7-2, Headquarters Dept of the Army Washington, DC, April 1976. Pollock, Daniel C Project Director & Editors De Mclaurin, Ronald, Rosenthal, Skillings(Carl F., Sarah A.)

These books are written or edited or contributed to by Council on Foreign Relations members and insiders. The Council on Foreign Relations is leaving proof so some Historian can piece together the truth sometime in the future. By the time this happens there may be no more America.

CFR member Congressman Richard Gephardt (D-MO), recently informed the TV audience America will soon have to relinquish control to a "International Regime." Are we approaching the day when students and workers marching in the United States will be crushed by UN Peacekeeping Forces under the control of this International Regime? Who will control the Regime? The Council on Foreign Relations? Should a major political party consider someone willing to turn our country over to a "International Regime" a possible presidential candidate?

If the CFR controls the executive office and Congress, legislation opposed by a large majority of Americans can be forced upon them. CFR members in the House and Senate work together to fix Congressional votes to promote Council on Foreign Relations aims. Their main aim is to create tension and conflict. CFR members are stacking the deck in favor of pro-abortion legislation.

This was done in September of 1996 when the House and Senate voted on whether to override CFR member President Clinton's veto of a bill that would have banned a controversial procedure for late-term abortions.

The bill would have banned "partial-birth abortion," a procedure in which a woman's birth canal is widened and the fetus is removed feet first until only the head remains in the uterus. A doctor then collapses the fetus's skull so the head can be drawn through the birth canal. Polls show a large majority of Americans oppose late-term abortions. Senators talked of receiving thousands of petitions and postcards urging that Clinton's veto be overridden.

A two-thirds vote of both houses is required to enact a bill over a presidential veto.On 19 September the House voted to override the veto (285-137 -- four more votes than needed).

On 27 September the Senate failed to override CFR member Clinton's veto (57-41 -- nine votes fewer than needed). Seventeen Senators who voted were CFR members. Thirteen CFR senators voted to sustain the veto-- four CFR senators voted to overturn. The nine votes needed to overturn the veto were CFR member votes. Only six Republican Senators voted to sustain the veto. Five of the six were CFR members.

The thirteen CFR Senators who voted to sustain CFR member Clinton's veto were: Nancy L. Kassebaum (R-KS, Episcopalian), William Cohen (R-ME, UnitArian), John H. Chafee (R-RI, Episcopalian), Alan K. Simpson (R-WY, Episcopalian), Olympia Snowe (R-ME, Greek Orthodox), John Forbes Kerry (D-MA, Catholic), Christopher Dodd (D-CT, Catholic), Bob Graham (D-FL, United Church of Christ), , Claiborne Pell (D-RI, Episcopalian), Charles S. Robb (D-VA, Episcopalian), John (Jay) D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV, Presbyterian), William Bradley (D-NJ, Presbyterian), and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA, Jewish). The Four CFR Senators who voted to overturn were ( 3 Republicans 1 Democrat): William V. Roth Jr. (R-DE, Episcopalian), Larry Pressler (R-SD, Catholic), Richard G. Lugar (R-IN, Methodist), Daniel Moynihan (D-NY, Catholic).

On 13 February 1997, the House voted narrowly to approve CFR member Clinton's request to release $385 million in international family planning funds four months earlier than scheduled. As the bill stood the money could be used to promote abortion as a method of family planning.

The vote on (HJRes36) was 220-209 with 44 republicans joining 175 democrats in support.

Twelve of the House members were CFR members. Eleven Council members voted for the bill and 1 voted against the bill. The Council on Foreign Relations members were the 11 vote marginal difference causing the resolution to pass.

CFR members voting for the bill were: Lee H. Hamilton (D-IN, Methodist), Donald M. Payne (D-NJ, Baptist), Charles B. Rangle (D-NY, Catholic), Howard L. Berman (D-CA, Jewish), Robert T. Matsui (D-CA, United Methodist), Sam Gejedenson (D-CT, Jewish), Louis Stokes (D-OH, A. M. E. Zion), John M. Spratt Jr. (D-SC, Presbyterian), Richard Gephardt (D-MO, Baptist), Jim Leach (R-IA, Episcopalian), Amory Houghton Jr. (R-NY, Episcopalian). Newton Gingrich (R-GA, Baptist), was the only CFR member voting against the bill.

The RAND Corporation, a CFR Think Tank, is researching Population Control. Key members of Clinton's administration work for RAND. International Security Advisor Lynn Etheridge Davis (author of the initial draft of the Church Committee's report NSC Chapter) and Economic Advisor Laura D'Andrea Tyson are CFR members who work for RAND. RAND is conducting studies in applied demography (Population Control) as a way to improve financial, political, and legal analysis. Is legalized abortion part of a Council on Foreign Relations strategic psychological operation of applied demography?

Regardless of how you feel about the abortion issue, you should be concerned that one small group can fix votes in the United States Congress. If they can fix the abortion vote, they can fix any vote. That makes our Democracy a joke.
 
 

The reason the vote is largely symbolic is not because of lack of support it is because Council on Foreign Relations members in the Executive branch and in Congress are working together to fix votes. Council on Foreign Relations members think only of themselves. Council on Foreign Relations members profit by betraying members of their families, their faiths, and their nation. The Council on Foreign Relations, a small immoral minority, is forcing controversial legislation on a large moral majority by cheating.

It's deja vu all over again. The same thing happened in September of 1996. CFR members are stacking the deck in favor of pro-abortion legislation. The 1996 and 1998 bills would ban "partial-birth abortion," a procedure in which a woman's birth canal is widened and the fetus is removed feet first until only the head remains in the uterus. A doctor then collapses the fetus's skull so the head can be drawn through the birth canal. Polls show a large majority of Americans oppose late-term abortions. Senators talked of receiving thousands of petitions and postcards urging that Clinton's veto be overridden.

A two-thirds vote of both houses is required to enact a bill over a presidential veto. On 19 September 1996 the House voted to override the veto (285-137 -- four more votes than needed).

On 27 September the Senate failed to override CFR member Clinton's veto (57-41 -- nine votes fewer than needed). Seventeen Senators who voted were CFR members. Thirteen CFR senators voted to sustain the veto-- four CFR senators voted to overturn. The nine votes needed to overturn the veto were CFR member votes. Only six Republican Senators voted to sustain the veto. Five of the six were CFR members.

The thirteen CFR Senators who voted to sustain CFR member Clinton's veto were: Nancy L. Kassebaum (R-KS, Episcopalian), William Cohen (R-ME, UnitArian), John H. Chafee (R-RI, Episcopalian), Alan K. Simpson (R-WY, Episcopalian), Olympia Snowe (R-ME, Greek Orthodox), John Forbes Kerry (D-MA, Catholic), Christopher Dodd (D-CT, Catholic), Bob Graham (D-FL, United Church of Christ), Claiborne Pell (D-RI, Episcopalian), Charles S. Robb (D-VA, Episcopalian), John (Jay) D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV, Presbyterian), William Bradley (D-NJ, Presbyterian), and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA, Jewish). The Four CFR Senators who voted to overturn were ( 3 Republicans 1 Democrat): William V. Roth Jr. (R-DE, Episcopalian), Larry Pressler (R-SD, Catholic), Richard G. Lugar (R-IN, Methodist), Daniel Moynihan (D-NY, Catholic).

On 13 February 1997, the House voted narrowly to approve CFR member Clinton's request to release $385 million in international family planning funds four months earlier than scheduled. As the bill stood the money could be used to promote abortion as a method of family planning.

The vote on (HJRes36) was 220-209 with 44 republicans joining 175 democrats in support.

Twelve of the House members were CFR members. Eleven Council members voted for the bill and 1 voted against the bill. The Council on Foreign Relations members were the 11 vote marginal difference causing the resolution to pass.

CFR members voting for the bill were: Lee H. Hamilton (D-IN, Methodist), Donald M. Payne (D-NJ, Baptist), Charles B. Rangle (D-NY, Catholic), Howard L. Berman (D-CA, Jewish), Robert T. Matsui (D-CA, United Methodist), Sam Gejedenson (D-CT, Jewish), Louis Stokes (D-OH, A. M. E. Zion), John M. Spratt Jr. (D-SC, Presbyterian), Richard Gephardt (D-MO, Baptist), Jim Leach (R-IA, Episcopalian), Amory Houghton Jr. (R-NY, Episcopalian). Newton Gingrich (R-GA, Baptist), was the only CFR member voting against the bill.

The RAND Corporation, a CFR Think Tank, is researching Population Control. Key members of Clinton's administration work for RAND. International Security Advisor Lynn Etheridge Davis (author of the initial draft of the Church Committee's report NSC Chapter) and Economic Advisor Laura D'Andrea Tyson are CFR members who work for RAND. RAND is conducting studies in applied demography (Population Control) as a way to improve financial, political, and legal analysis. Is legalized abortion part of a Council on Foreign Relations strategic psychological operation of applied demography?

Ever hear of Council on Foreign Relations member George Soros? He's one of the world's richest men (estimated worth: $10 billion) and probably the biggest international investor of all time. This guy lost $600 million in one day speculating on which way the yen would jump and never flinched.

Soros doesn't flinch because he and his fellow Council on Foreign Relations members can always steal more money. In 1995, Senator Alfonse D'Amato, as head of the Senate Banking Committee, issued a report about the Clinton Administration's $20 billion loan to Mexico. The reason given for the loan was to prop up a staggering Mexico because any default on loans would end foreign investment in all developing countries.

The real reason was to rescue American and Mexican investors who had thrown their money into the craps game of high-interest Mexican Government bonds. For a year before the loan was ordered, on January 31, 1995, top Treasury officials and President Clinton were telling us how great things were going economically in Mexico. It was a cover-up to prevent Congressional defeat of the North American Free Trade Agreement, to bolster the Mexican and US administrations in upcoming elections in both countries, and to protect the major speculators.

An article from Newsday , "Peso Hits Record Low As Bailout Is Debated" ( Karen Rothmyer - 1/31/,95) identifies some of the Council on Foreign Relations members involved in the cover-up. They were "Former Presidents George Bush, Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford [who] signed a declaration of support for the [bailout] plan. Also endorsing the plan was George Soros, probably the world's most influential international investor."

George Soros is also a member of the Carlyle group. The Carlyle Group is an investor team led by Ronald Reagan's Defense Secretary Frank C. Carlucci III and funded in part by the Mellon family. Carlucci is a sawed off runt with a Napoleon complex and a poor self image. The furniture in Carlucci's office is miniaturized so he feels bigger. When Carlucci is photographed with other men, they sit down, and he stands up, to give the perception he is bigger. As president and CEO of Sears World Trade center, Carlucci left the company with a $60 million dollar loss, and went work for government.

The managing director of the Carlyle group is George Bush's White House Office of Management and Budget Director Richard Darman. A partner in the group is George Bush's Secretary of State James A. Baker III. Another member of the Carlyle group is Richard Nixon's White House Office of Management and Budget Deputy Director Frederic Malek. George Bush Sr.'s son George Bush Jr., former CIA Director Robert Gates and current SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt are advisors to, investors in or board members of Carlyle's companies. Included in Carlyle's press kit are Vernon Jordan and Bob Strauss.

Carlucci, Darman, Gates, Jordan, Malek and Strauss are Council on foreign relations members. The Carlyle group has exploited their governmental connections and ties to turn itself into one of the twenty-five largest defense contractors in the world. All the members of the Carlyle group have been part of dubious investment activities. Many have been exposed in scandals that involve the Central Intelligence Agency.

Soros uses some of the money he steals to fund a group of international foundations. Foundations are used by The Council on Foreign Relations to funnel corporate and personal wealth into the policy-making process. Foundations are tax-free. Contributions to foundations are deductible from federal corporate and individual income taxes. The Foundations themselves are not subject to federal income taxation. Foundations control hundreds of Billions of dollars of money that would normally go to pay federal and individual income taxes. In 1970 there were 7000 foundations that controlled $20 Billion in assets. Nearly 40% of these foundation assets were controlled by the top 12 foundations [ Ford Foundation, Lilly Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Duke Endowment, Kresge Foundation, Kellogg Foundation, Mott Foundation, Pew Mutual Trust, Hartford Foundation, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Carnegie Foundation]. The top twelve foundations were controlled by the Council on Foreign Relations.

Foundations can he created by corporations or individuals. These corporations or individuals can name themselves and their friends as directors or trustees of the foundations they create. Large blocks of corporate stock or large amounts of personal wealth can be donated as tax-exempt contributions to the foundations. The foundations can receive interest, dividends, profit shares, and capital gains from these assets without paying any taxes on them. The directors or trustees, of course, are not allowed to use foundation income or assets for their personal expenses, as they would their own taxable income, But otherwise they have great latitude in directing the use of foundation monies-to underwrite research, investigate social problems, create or assist universities, write research, investigate social problems, establish "think tanks," endow museums,etc. [1]

At the Soros foundation Web Site (http://www.soros.org/) we learn that the:

"National foundations are autonomous institutions established by Mr. Soros in particular countries to initiate and support projects. National foundations are located primarily in the previously communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, but also in Guatemala, Haiti, Mongolia, and South Africa. Each national foundation has a board of directors and staff who set the priorities for the foundation's work. The national foundations are, in most cases, autonomous nongovernmental organizations registered in their own countries and staffed by local professionals. The foundations develop distinct programs in support of the mission and strategic goals established by their directors and staff. These programs vary greatly in nature and urgency from country to country. The local nature of the foundations represented here is one of the distinctive features of Mr. Soros' approach to philanthropy."

One of the Foundations, the Open Society Institute, is issuing grants to promote abortion. Among the programs that will be supported are programs that use abortion as a method for family planning.

Is Soros' Open Society Institute's grant part of a Council on Foreign Relations abortion psycho-political operation that is connected to the RAND's Population Control studies? Is the Soros foundation a way for the Council on Foreign Relations to use tax payer money to promote abortion and population control? Are the Soros foundations part of the Council on Foreign Relations "Secret Team." Do Soros Foundation employees double as covert operators who carry out well planned psycho-political operations in the Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union? Are any Soros' Foundation employees also CIA agents?

The Open Societies Reproductive Rights Grant Proposal Follows

REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS GRANTMAKING Open Society Institute

As part of its U.S. programs, the Open Society Institute has initiated a grantmaking program that will promote the development of policies and practices to protect women's access to comprehensive reproductive health care, including abortion.

In selecting grantees in this area, the Open Society Institute will favor strategies that build the capacity of organizations that are working at the grassroots/community level. The rights of women to obtain objective information about reproductive health care issues and to freely make decisions based on this information will guide our grantmaking. In addition, OSI will welcome proposals that address the particular needs of low-income women, whose access to information and services is often inadequate.

The Open Society Institutes reproductive rights grantmaking will initially support programs that focus on the promotion of safe and reliable forms of reproductive health care; the protection of minors' rights to reproductive health care; efforts to expand women's access to abortion and family planning services on the state and federal level, and advocacy and public education in support of these objectives.

APPLICATION PROCESS

Organizations interested in applying for funding should first submit an original two-page letter of inquiry along with a copy of their Internal Revenue Service determination letter. All inquiries will be acknowledged promptly, and applicants will be informed of the expected time frame for a decision. If the Open Society Institute invites a request for funding, a full proposal and additional materials will be required. Please do not send full proposals or other unsolicited materials until requested to do so.

The Open Society Institute will generally make grants only to tax-exempt organizations as described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Except under special circumstances, OSI will not consider proposals for programs consisting solely or primarily of conferences, television or radio productions, or publications. Additionally, OSI does not provide funding for endowments, building construction or maintenance, annual fund appeals, sectarian religious concerns, or political purposes such as lobbying, propaganda, or partisan political activity. With few exceptions, the Open Society Institute's U.S. programs will not be making grants outside the United States.

GRANTMAKING DEADLINES

There are no deadlines for the submission of inquiries or of invited proposals. Grant award determinations will be made on an ongoing basis.

OPEN SOCIETY INSTITUTE

The Open Society Institute is a private operating and grantmaking foundation that promotes the development of open societies around the world. The Open Society Institute develops and implements a variety of U.S.-based and international programs in the areas of educational, social, and legal reform, and encourages public debate and policy alternatives in complex and often controversial fields. The Open Society Institute is part of an informal network of more than 24 autonomous nonprofit foundations and other organizations created and funded by the philanthropist George Soros in Central and Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, Haiti, and South Africa, as well as in the United States.

NOTE: Because the Open Society Institute is in the initial phase of its U.S. grantmaking program, the guidelines for this program area are subject to change.

Please submit your letter of inquiry and 501(c)(3) form to:

Ms. Erlin Ibreck (letter of inquiry)

Open Society Institute 400 West 59th Street

New York, NY 10019

Tel: (212) 548-0127 Fax: (212) 548-4677

Title-50 War and National Defense - 783 states - "It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to combine, conspire, or agree with any other person to perform any act which would substantially contribute to the establishment within the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship, the direction and control of which is to be vested in, or exercised by or under the domination of control of, any foreign government."

The Council on Foreign Relations are in violation of Title-50 War and National Defense - 783. The Council on Foreign Relations has unlawfully and knowingly combined, conspired, and agreed to substantially contribute to the establishment of one world order under the totalitarian dictatorship, the direction and the control of members of Council on Foreign Relations, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, and members of their branch organizations in various nations throughout the world. That is totalitarianism on a global scale.

Have members of the Council on Foreign Relations, and their branch organizations in other nations engineered the latest GLOBAL ECONOMIC CRISIS, as an excuse to rationalize the institution of an International Federal Reserve System?

The summit meetings of industrialized, market-economy democracies (the Group of Seven or G-7), began in 1975. They have become important annual world events, and evolved into a major world institution. The summit is a forum in which the leaders of the world's seven major industrialized countries and the European Union (formerly European Community), assisted by their foreign and finance ministers and personal representatives, set the agenda, then debate and make decisions on economic, political, environmental, security.

A good article that describes the relationship of the G-7 to the United Nations (UN) Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), GATT's successor, the new World Trade Organization (WTO), and other international organizations and events can be found at G-7 Summit Member Nations are:

Canada

France

Germany

Italy

Japan

United Kingdom

United States

A representative from the European Community.

Representatives at the G-7 summit often include members of the Council on Foreign Relations or CFR branch organizations in the other G-7 nations. Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, who is now the Chair of the G-7, and President Clinton are members of the Bilderberger Group. The Bilderbergers are an international organizations made of of Council on Foreign Relations members and members from CFR branch organizations such as the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the Canadian Institute of International Affairs, the Japan Institute of International Affairs, and Italy's Institute of International Relations.

On September 14, Council on Foreign Relations member Bill Clinton, addressed the Council on Foreign Relations, at CFR headquarters in New York. His address included the need to strengthen the World Bank, the IMF, and EX-Im bank. The International Monetary Fund will be used to fine-tune the global economy in the same manner that the Federal Reserve is used to fine-tune the American Economy. The Federal Reserve was established and is run by the Council on Foreign Relations.

In his address CFR member Bill Clinton, has tasked CFR member Secretary of the State Robert E. Rubin, and CFR member Chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan J. Greenspan, to "recommend ways to adapt the international financial architecture to the 21st century." Next week CFR member Clinton will meet with Bilderberger member Prime Minister Blair, and Prime Minister Prodi of Italy at New York University law school to discuss extending the benefits of the world economy.

Unfortunately the benefits of the world economy are going to be extended to only one small group -- the members of the Council on Foreign Relations and their branch organizations in other nations ( about 60,000 people in all). The rest of the worlds population will have to suffer war, famine, genocide, and global economic upheavals, so that CFR member munition, medicine, media, energy, and food businesses at home and abroad can maximize their profits.

In his speech, CFR member Clinton informed the Council on Foreign Relations members:

"Therefore, I believe the industrial world's chief priority today, plainly, is to spur growth. It seems to me there are six immediate steps we should take to help contain the current financial turmoil around the world, and then two longer-term projects in which we must be involved.

To take the immediate first, we must work with Japan, Europe, and other nations to spur growth. Second, we will expand our efforts to enable viable businesses in Asia to emerge from crippling debt burdens so they can once again contribute to growth and job creation. Third, we've asked the World Bank to double its support for the social safety net in Asia to help people who are innocent victims of financial turmoil. Fourth, we'll urge the major industrial economies to stand ready to use the $15 billion in IMF emergency funds to help stop the financial contagion from spreading to Latin America and elsewhere. Fifth, our Ex-Im Bank, under the leadership of Jim Harmon, will intensify its efforts to generate economic activity in the developing world immediately, in the next three months. And sixth, Congress must live up to its responsibility for continued prosperity by meeting our obligations to the International Monetary Fund...

[CFR member] Secretary Rubin has been working with his counterparts in the G-7 to get cooperative support for several of these measures. I understand [CFR member] Chairman Greenspan is also consulting with his counterparts on these items as well...

Above all, we must accelerate our efforts to reform the international financial system. Today I have asked [CFR member] Secretary Rubin and [CFR member] Federal Reserve Board Chairman Greenspan to convene a major meeting of their counterparts within the next 30 days to recommend ways to adapt the international financial architecture to the 21st century...

Today, I'm asking [CFR member] Secretary Rubin to work with other financial authorities and international economic institutions to enhance efforts to explore comprehensive plans to help Asian corporations emerge from massive debt where individual firms have been swept under by systemic, national economic problems, rather than their own errors. We need to get credit flowing again. We need to get business back to making products, producing services, creating jobs.

I just want to emphasize again that even as we respond to the urgent alarms of the moment, we must speed the pace of this systemic work as well. That is why I have asked [CFR member] Secretary Rubin and [CFR member] Chairman Greenspan to convene the finance ministers and central bankers of the G-7 and key emerging economies in Washington within 30 days to develop a preliminary report to the heads of state by the beginning of next year on strengthening the world financial system.

We must develop policies so that countries can reap the benefits of free-flowing capital in a way that is safe and sustainable. We must adapt the IMF so that it can more effectively confront the new types of financial crises, minimizing their frequency, severity, and human cost. We need to consider ways to extend emergency financing when countries are battling crises of confidence due to world financial distress as distinct from their own errors in policy. We must find ways to tap the energy of global markets without sentencing the world to a cycle of continued extreme crises.

For half a century now in our national economy, we have learned not to eliminate but to tame and limit the swings of boom and bust. In the 21st century, we have to find a way to do that in the global economy as well.

I've discussed this in recent days with [fellow Bilderberger member] Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, who is now the Chair of the G-7. He shares my belief that this is an urgent task. It is critical to the mission that he and I and Prime Minister Prodi of Italy will be discussing next week at the New York University Law School in a very interesting meeting that the First Lady and others in our administration helped to organize on how to extend the benefits of the world economy to all and how to strengthen democracy in a time of such sweeping economic change." 1 "

On September 16, Reuters released an article titled "Financier Soros Warns Global Crises Far From Over." The article tells us Soros,

"said the U.S. Federal Reserve may need to cut interest rates to spur growth, and called on the U.S. Congress to give $18 billion to the IMF to replenish the lending agency's reserves, drained by bailouts for Russia and three crisis-hit Asian states.

But Soros told the House Banking Committee that even a fully funded IMF could not end the market turmoil. "Replenishing the capital of the IMF will not be sufficient to resolve the global financial crisis."

Council on Foreign Relations member George Soros is one of the world's richest men (estimated worth: $10 billion) and probably the biggest international investor of all time. This guy lost $600 million in one day speculating on which way the yen would jump and never flinched. Soros doesn't flinch because he and his fellow Council on Foreign Relations members can always steal more money. In 1995, Senator Alfonse D'Amato, as head of the Senate Banking Committee, issued a report about the Clinton Administration's $20 billion loan to Mexico. The reason given for the loan was to prop up a staggering Mexico because any default on loans would end foreign investment in all developing countries.

The real reason was to rescue American and Mexican investors who had thrown their money into the craps game of high-interest Mexican Government bonds. For a year before the loan was ordered, on January 31, 1995, top Treasury officials and President Clinton were telling us how great things were going economically in Mexico. It was a cover-up to prevent Congressional defeat of the North American Free Trade Agreement, to bolster the Mexican and US administrations in upcoming elections in both countries, and to protect the major speculators.

An article from Newsday , "Peso Hits Record Low As Bailout Is Debated" ( Karen Rothmyer - 1/31/,95) identifies some of the Council on Foreign Relations members involved in the cover-up. They were "Former Presidents George Bush, Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford [who] signed a declaration of support for the [bailout] plan. Also endorsing the plan was George Soros, probably the world's most influential international investor."

George Soros is also a member of the Carlyle group. The Carlyle Group is an investor team led by Ronald Reagan's Defense Secretary Frank C. Carlucci III and funded in part by the Mellon family. Carlucci is a sawed off runt with a Napoleon complex and a poor self image. The furniture in Carlucci's office is miniaturized so he feels bigger. When Carlucci is photographed with other men, they sit down, and he stands up, to give the perception he is bigger. As president and CEO of Sears World Trade center, Carlucci left the company with a $60 million dollar loss, and went work for government.

The managing director of the Carlyle group is George Bush's White House Office of Management and Budget Director Richard Darman. A partner in the group is George Bush's Secretary of State James A. Baker III. Another member of the Carlyle group is Richard Nixon's White House Office of Management and Budget Deputy Director Frederic Malek. George Bush Sr.'s son George Bush Jr., former CIA Director Robert Gates and current SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt are advisors to, investors in or board members of Carlyle's companies. Included in Carlyle's press kit are Vernon Jordan and Bob Strauss.

Carlucci, Darman, Gates, Jordan, Malek and Strauss are Council on Foreign Relations members. The Carlyle group has exploited their governmental connections and ties to turn itself into one of the twenty-five largest defense contractors in the world. All the members of the Carlyle group have been part of dubious investment activities. Many have been exposed in scandals that involve the Central Intelligence Agency.

Soros uses some of the money he steals to fund a group of international foundations. Foundations are used by The Council on Foreign Relations to funnel corporate and personal wealth into the policy-making process. Foundations are tax-free. Contributions to foundations are deductible from federal corporate and individual income taxes. The Foundations themselves are not subject to federal income taxation. Foundations control hundreds of Billions of dollars of money that would normally go to pay federal and individual income taxes. In 1970 there were 7000 foundations that controlled $20 Billion in assets. Nearly 40% of these foundation assets were controlled by the top 12 foundations [ Ford Foundation, Lilly Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Duke Endowment, Kresge Foundation, Kellogg Foundation, Mott Foundation, Pew Mutual Trust, Hartford Foundation, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Carnegie Foundation]. The top twelve foundations were controlled by the Council on Foreign Relations.

Foundations can be created by corporations or individuals. These corporations or individuals can name themselves and their friends as directors or trustees of the foundations they create. Large blocks of corporate stock or large amounts of personal wealth can be donated as tax-exempt contributions to the foundations. The foundations can receive interest, dividends, profit shares, and capital gains from these assets without paying any taxes on them. The directors or trustees, of course, are not allowed to use foundation income or assets for their personal expenses, as they would their own taxable income, But otherwise they have great latitude in directing the use of foundation monies-to underwrite research, investigate social problems, create or assist universities, write research, investigate social problems, establish "think tanks," endow museums,etc.2

One of the Soros Foundations, the Open Society Institute  is issuing grants to promote abortion. Among the programs are those that use abortion as a method for family planning. In November of 1996 the California voters passed Proposition 215 - the Compassionate Use Act. It allows the marijuana to be grown and used for "any illness for which marijuana provides relief." The Campaign for the "Compassionate Use Act" to legalize medical marijuana would not have been successful without the funding of billionaire Council on Foreign Relations member George Soros.3

The article that follows explains how the IMF and World bank are benefiting the people of Africa. The article is by Dennis Brutus, a member of the board of directors at Public Information Research . It appeared in the journal Africa Today, 44, 4 (1997), pages 379-384, and is posted on the PIR website.

Author's ID from Africa Today:

Dennis Brutus was born in Zimbabwe (then Rhodesia) and grew up in South Africa. He was a teacher until 1962 when, as a result of his political activism -- most notably against blacks' exclusion from South African sports -- he was arrested, wounded as he tried to escape, and imprisoned in the infamous Robben Island. He went into exile in 1966. His testimony concerning apartheid helped win support for the ban against South Africa's participation in the Olympic Games. Since then, he has taught at Northwestern University (until 1985) and at the University of Pittsburgh, where he currently teaches in the Department of Africana Studies. Dennis Brutus is also known worldwide for his poetry, which reflects his prison experiences, his struggles for justice, and the agony of political exile. Notable among his publications are "Salutes and Censures (Enugu, Nigeria: Fourth Dimension, 1982), "Stubborn Hope: New Poems and Selections from China Poems and Strains" (London: Heinemann Educational, 1978), and "Letters to Martha, and Other Poems from a South African Prison" (London: Heinemann Educational, 1968).

As we prepare to enter the third millennium, a new political and economic agenda is being designed for Africa that will deeply affect the lives of its people far beyond the year 2000. What are the contents of this agenda, its implications, and some of the possibilities it opens?

Since the end of the Cold War, a new global vision has emerged with the shift to a unipolar world dominated by only one superpower. The presumed demise of the conflict between capitalism and socialism has so changed the global political landscape that Francis Fukuyama has even suggested that we are witnessing "the end of history."[1] According to Fukuyama, we are moving toward a world where major political and economic trends and patterns can be expected to remain essentially unchanged. I believe such a vision is a world where power will always be in the hands of those who now possess it, and the powerless will (unfortunately) continue to remain so -- a world where the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. Politicians as well as academics are spreading this new orthodoxy.

This trend is upheld by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) according to guidelines that were established in 1944 at the Bretton Woods conference in New Hampshire, where policies were devised to prevent the type of political and economic disruptions brought about by World War II. These two institutions recently celebrated their fiftieth anniversary. Perhaps what they were also celebrating is their capability to impose the agenda that issued from Bretton Woods, which they were unable to realize during the Cold War due to the existence of a conflictual world dominated by two nuclear superpowers.

Glimpses of this agenda, particularly as it affects Africa and other "less-developed" regions, can be caught from a statement made in 1992 by Lawrence Summers, who was then chief economist of the World Bank and is now deputy secretary of the treasury in the Clinton administration. In an internal memo[2] leaked to the press, Summers proposed that the toxic waste of the "first world" be shipped to the countries of the "third world." He argued that the Third World has more space for such waste and that the cost of treating the diseases produced by nuclear waste is much lower in these countries.[3] Summers's views are typical of those who are shaping World Bank policies.

The World Bank asserts that the causes of Africa's economic bankruptcy are the corruption and inefficiency of its political class and its wasteful government spending, including that for education. What Africa needs, according to the World Bank, is not more educated people -- professionals, people with managerial skills -- but rather more people who have "practical" skills, whether in agriculture or industry. "Capacity," not education, is the key word in this context, and the World Bank has appointed itself as the agency to provide it, as we learn from their 1991 document "Africa Capacity Building Initiative."[4]

What the World Bank has recommended are both massive cuts in the education budgets of African countries -- spending cuts reaching 50 percent for some universities (for buildings and salaries of staff and teachers) -- and cuts in enrollment. Paul Johnson, a writer for the New York Times Magazine, describes such external initiatives in an article entitled "Colonialism's Back and Not a Moment Too Soon."[5] In this article, Johnson makes three points about African countries: (1) they are economically bankrupt; (2) they have discovered that they cannot govern themselves; and (3) they are now asking the colonial powers to return to run them. As unbelievable as these assertions may seem, they reflect the position of both the World Bank and the IMF as they extend their hegemony over Africa and other "less-developed" regions of the planet.

One of the central mechanisms by which this recolonization process is carried out is the loan system through structural adjustment programs. Significantly, many of the countries that received loans from the World Bank have not seen their economies improve. Quite the opposite. Some are in a far worse economic position and more indebted than they were prior to taking the loans.

Once a loan is taken, paying it back can be a back-breaking matter. But this is only a part of the problem. Even more pernicious is that the World Bank often dictates how the borrowed money is to be spent, which is specified through a whole set of "conditionalities." One of them is the drastic reduction in public spending for higher education, which can be cut by as much as 50 percent. Other conditions include equally devastating cuts in the number of civil servants and massive currency devaluations that dramatically diminish the purchasing power of many Africans, while at the same time dramatically increasing the cost of imported products.

In the case of South Africa, which is still negotiating with the World Bank, such structural adjustment policies are referred to as a "rationalization" program. The implication is that there is something quite irrational -- that needs to be corrected -- about the number of university instructors and students who are in professional programs. While the debate continues in South Africa, some of the World Bank's conditionalities are already being carried out, including the sale of South African Airways.[6] The existence of a minimum wage is seen as a major flaw. In addition, the South African government, under Nelson Mandela, has been asked to promise that it will not allow workers to strike.

The end result of structural adjustment programs, such as those proposed for South Africa, can be a country that is even more bankrupt, more unable to repay its loans, and more impoverished, as its currency is devalued, its services are gutted, and its agricultural sector is turned upside down to produce cash crops for export rather than food for the people's subsistence. This has been the case in Zimbabwe, where the World Bank persuaded the government to shift production supports from food crops like maize to export crops like tobacco. Not surprisingly, malnutrition has increased and infant mortality has doubled.

It is hardly imaginable that anyone could knowingly devise such a ruthless, heartless system that is entirely devoted to increasing profit and largely indifferent to its human cost. This, however, is the system that is shaping life in Africa today, and it is the system that we must challenge. It is crucial that we do not accept the current academic wisdom that pretends that there are no choices or alternatives -- a position one often hears rehearsed in South Africa today. The debate has been conducted within the African National Congress (ANC), where opposing sides have adopted the labels TINA and THABA, standing for "there is no alternative" and "there has to be a better alternative."

Alternatives do exist.[7] We have to challenge the assumption that structural adjustment is inevitably Africa's way to the future. A crucial condition is that African countries begin to cooperate with each other on a regional basis so that they are no longer forced to depend on the global structures and agencies that today try to dictate Africa's political and economic course. If this can happen, a better, more promising future can be envisaged.

What is certain is that we cannot accept the prospect of a world where the majority continues to become poorer and poorer while a few individuals continue to amass incredible riches. While the World Bank was celebrating its fiftieth birthday, demonstrators in the streets of Washington were declaring that "fifty years is enough!" They were part of a strong "Fifty Years Is Enough" campaign that has been mobilizing across the United States and other countries. Along the same lines, during the G-7 Summit in Halifax, Nova Scotia, 3,000 people gathered in the streets protesting the G-7's global agenda and organizing a "People's Summit." Similarly, during the recent Summit of the Eight in Denver, an alternative people's summit, termed "The Other Economic Summit," was convened over a period of several days. In numerous workshops, the global agenda of the G-8/IMF/World Bank was examined and challenged in Denver; among the distinguished participants were Vandana Shiva,[8] David Korten,[9] Kevin Danaher,[10] and Lisa McGowan and Njoki Njehu of the "Fifty Years Is Enough" campaign. Joining them were the homeless, women who are fighting against discrimination, and teenagers who know that there are no jobs for them and who have no hope for the future.

They all understood what structural adjustment involves, and not just in the Third World, for this program is being carried out not only in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, but also in Canada and the United States. In Washington, Halifax, and Denver, people recognized that there is a link between the recolonization of Africa and other parts of the Third World, and the attack on workers' social and economic rights in the metropoles. They recognized the increasing homogenization of global rule as multinational corporations and multinational financial agencies such as the World Bank and the IMF increasingly control the economies of every country in the world. Most important, they recognized that the struggle for self-determination and human welfare must be a globally coordinated project. The future will decide whether this project can be realized. But there can be no doubt that the answer to this question will determine the course of African history in the twenty-first century.
=================================================================================================================
 

NY Times July 1995 On My Mind - $20 Billion Thriller - a limited hangout - by Council on Foreign Relations Member A.M. Rosenthal & MOI Spent weekend reading great yarn of international intrigue reaching into high places, very high. Stakes of billions of dollars, manipulation of governments, that kind of thing. Bit long - 748 - pages - but moves right along; highly recommended.  Only two things may spoil reader enjoyment. Perpetrators win and justice is not done - that's one.  The other is that since this story is all true and the money your own, it can leave you with a heavy awareness that you have been taken for a ride economically, morally and politically by the Administration and Congress you put in office.  In fact you are still on it - a ride for which Americans had to gamble $20 billion of taxpayer money without ever being asked if they wanted to get on board. In fact, this article was written to help keep you on that ride. This article was written to misdirect, you, the reader, and prevent you from learning who cheated you. This article was written to misdirect you from believing that you were cheated by the Council on Foreign Relations. Rosenthal is a member of the group and a psychological manipulator, trained to help create false reality worlds for the American people through his articles. The narrative, chronology and documentation are all in this story - a report put out by Senator Alfonse D'Amato, as head of the Senate Banking Committee, about the Clinton Administration's $20 billion loan to Mexico. It is the result of undernoticed committee hearings and months of staff research. This statement is only partially true. Some of the narrative, chronology and documentation are in this story. What the story lacks are any specific individual and corporate names. What this story doesn't tell the reader is that individuals and corporations are connected to the Council on Foreign Relations. This oversight is no accident. Rosenthal wrote this article to misdirect the reader. The reason given for the loan was to prop up a staggering Mexico because any default on loans would end foreign investment in all developing countries. That was malarkey then and is malarkier now. The real reason was to rescue American and Mexican investors who had thrown their money into the craps game of high-interest Mexican Government bonds. They saw their money disappearing. So they got the US to make the loan that would turn their risks into a guaranteed return - in American money. Some lighthearted day ask for the same deal on your own investments in America. This statement is only partially true. Many of the investors not only saw their money disappearing but knew before it disappeared that that is exactly what would happen to it. These investors were members of the Council on Foreign Relations. The money "disappeared" right into the accounts of other Council on Foreign relations members -- who knew what was going to happen before it happened. The Council on Foreign members whose money "disappeared" knew they would get it back because Council on Foreign Relations members would insure that the US Government would give them the money back through the Mexican bailout. From the beginning the issue seemed to me not so much the Mexican Government and its failures, but the conduct of the US Government. For a year before the loan was ordered, on January 31, 1995, top Treasury officials and President Clinton were telling us how great things were going economically in Mexico. Didn't they know the truth, which they revealed only at the time of the loan, that Mexico was heading to disaster? Who knew what? When?  The answer given here in several columns was gathered from available information. It was a cover-up to prevent Congressional defeat of the North American Free Trade Agreement, to bolster the Mexican and US administrations in upcoming elections in both countries , and to protect the major speculators. This answer is only partially true. Members of the Council on Foreign Relations in the State Department and National Security Council planned a carefully prepared psycho-political operation to defraud the American public and enrich themselves and other Council on Foreign Relations members . It was planned and scripted by members of the Council on Foreign Relations in the state department, and on the National Security Council. This group has been carrying out similar psycho-political operations aimed at the American public since World War I. C. Boyden Gray is the son of Gordon Gray, a powerful Council of Foreign Relations member, now deceased. Upon graduating law school C. Boyden Gray joined Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering. Many of the firms associates counsel different Government departments including the FBI and CIA. Lloyd N. Cutler counseled President Carter; C. Boyden Gray counseled President Bush. Cutler, Carter, and Bush belong to the CFR. The OIC Iran-Contra report tells us about the character of Presidential Counsel Gray -- Gray and his colleagues advised Bush to lie. In 1993 Environmental Organizations sued to compel production of an environmental impact statement on NAFTA before it was submitted to Congress. Clinton sided with the Environmental Organizations. A law called The National Environmental Policy Act required an environmental impact study in major Federal Actions. The Environmental Organization won. The judge ordered the study. The group that lost was the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (OTR), an executive agency that advises the president. The OTR appealed. The Automobile Manufactures Association, had C. Boyden Gray file a friend of the court brief in behalf of the OTR. Gray used political connections, legal chicanery, weasel words and double talk. The OTR won the appeal. President Clinton and the American Citizen lost. NAFTA was "fast-tracked" through congress, there was no impact study. Now the report puts reality beyond discussion: It was indeed a cover-up. Scores of internal documents show that from February 1994, while the Administration was shilling for the Mexican "miracle," its top officials knew that Mexico was in big economic trouble. Documents show that they had information from their own statistics, from what Mexicans told them privately and from the C.I.A. An article from Newsday , Peso Hits Record Low As Bailout Is Debated ( Karen Rothmyer - 1/31/,95) identifies that some of the Council on Foreign Relations members involved in the cover-up. They were "Former Presidents George Bush, Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford [who] signed a declaration of support for the [bailout] plan. Also endorsing the plan was George Soros, probably the world's most influential international investor." Bush, Carter, Ford, and Soros are all members of the Council on Foreign Relations. George Soros is also a member of the Carlyle group. The Carlyle Group is an investor team led by Ronald Regan's Defense Secretary Frank C. Carlucci III and funded in part by the Mellon family. Carlucci is a sawed off runt with a Napoleon complex and a poor self image. The furniture in Carlucci's office is miniaturized so he feels bigger. When Carlucci is photographed with other men, they sit down, and he stands up, to give the perception he is bigger. As president and CEO of Sears World Trade center, Carlucci left the company with a $60 million dollar loss, and went work for government. The managing director of the Carlyle group is George Bush's White House Office of Management and Budget Director Richard Darman. A partner in the group is George Bush's Secretary of State James A. Baker III. Another member of the Carlyle group is Richard Nixon's White House Office of Management and Budget Deputy Director Frederic Malek. George Bush Sr.'s son George Bush Jr., former CIA Director Robert Gates and current SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt are advisors to, investors in or board members of Carlyle's companies. Included in Carlyle's press kit are Vernon Jordan and Bob Strauss. Carlucci, Darman, Gates, Jordon, Malek and Strauss are members of the Council on foreign relations. The Carlyle group has exploited their governmental connections and ties to turn itself into one of the twenty-five largest defense contractors in the world. All the members of the Carlyle group have been part of dubious investment activities. Many have been exposed in scandals that involve the Central Intelligence Agency. The report puts chief responsibility for the charade on Under Secretary Larry Summers. But Obviously the Treasury Secretary, then Lloyd Bentsen, knew. If they knew, so did the White House. William Clinton, Lloyd Bentson, and Clinton's economic advisor Laura D'Andrea Tyson are all members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Did D'Amato's congressional investigation uncover this fact. Did D'Amato investigate the Council on Foreign Relations. If not, why not. Why doesn't Rosenthal raise this issue in his article? Could it be that D'Amato's investigation and Rosenthal's article are part of the psycho-political operation itself. Is this tactic simply meant to get the people riled up over a phoney bi-partisian issue and to get them to lose sight of the fact that they have been cheated and swindled by both Republicans and Democrats working together in consort with the Council on Foreign Relations. Epilogue: The burden of the whole Mexican-American mess falls on ordinary citizens in both countries. In Mexico, one million workers have lost their jobs and inflation is expected to reach 50 percent this year.  For the US, according to the report, trade with Mexico has gone from an American surplus to a deficit that may reach $15 billion this year. The beneficiaries are Mexican, American and international companies that are increasing their exports of cheaper Mexican-made goods. Why doesn't Rosenthal mention some of the names of the companies? Why doesn't Rosenthal mention Soros, the Carlyle group and the other influential Council on Foreign Relations members who leant support to the bailout plan? The decision of Congress to go along, for fear of taking responsibility, was a historic example of cowardice hiding behind bipartisanship. Was it? Or, is it because Congress is controlled by the Council on Foreign Relations members and insiders. Is it because members of Congress are part of the fraud themselves. Are members of Congress play acting. Are they showing false concern over criminal activities, to give the public the perception that they have a representative government when they have nothing of the sort. When the first $10 billion was turned over to Mexico, the US said no more would be needed this year. Now Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin says the second $10 billion is available to Mexico immediately. Who gave Rubin this type of power? Senator D'Amato asks for a fight against that second $10 billion, since the loan is a betrayal of American's trust in their Government. Is D'Amato's entire investigation and posturing simply part of a psyco-political operation being used to make the American citizen perceive a false reality world. A world in which the American citizen perceives they have responsible representatives watching out for their self interests. If a $10 billion dollar fraud was committed why isn't anyone being indicted? Why should Congress vote on whether or not to appropriate $10 billion more? Why doesn't Congress find the men who cheated America out of $10 Billion, get money back and jail the guilty parties? Senator Robert Dole recently put the entertainment executives a question every adult must face sooner or later. Now it faces all member of Congress who permitted the betrayal: "Is this what you intend to accomplish with your careers?" Hasn't Dole ever heard of the Council on Foreign Relations? Why hasn't Dole exposed this group of unethical greedy avaricious thieves, robbers, and traitors by name? Is Dole a Council on Foreign Relations insider, whose political career hinges on help from members of this group? Are a large majority of elected and appointed officials controlled by the Council on Foreign Relations. Are these elected and appointed officials playing parts in well coordinated and planed psyco-political operations scripted, directed and produced by members of the Council on Foreign Relations in the State Department, the National Security Council, and in US Intelligence agencies? Are these psyco-political operations covert operations planned to control the American citizen, steal their tax dollars and rob them of their freedom? Does a Council on Foreign Relations controlled media help to misdirect and misinform the American public by carefully shaping the publics perception of reality using psychological warfare techniques? WAKE UP AMERICA WE HAVE LOST CONTROL OF OUR GOVERNMENT. MEDIA Past & Present CFR/TC members ( CFR men outnumber CFR women 10 to 1 - In addition to such character flaws as avarice and greed CFR members are also racist and sexist )  NBC/RCA  Jane Pfeiffer CFR  Barbara Walters CFR  PUBLIC BROADCAST SERVICE  C. Hunter-Gault CFR  NEWSWEEK/WASH. POST  Katherine Graham CFR  Meg Greenfield CFR  DOW JONES & CO.  Karen House CFR  CBS  William Paley CFR  William Burden CFR  Roswell Gilpatirec CFR  Henry Schact CFR/TC  Manetta Tree CFR  C.C. Collingwood CFR  Lawrence LeSuer CFR  Dan Rather CFR  Harry Reasoner CFR  Richard Hottelet CFR  Frank Stanton CFR  Bill Moyers CFR  NBC/RCA  Jane Pfeiffer CFR  Lester Crystal CFR  R. W. Sonnenfeldt CFR  T.F. Breadshaw CFR  John Petty CFR  David Brinkley CFR  John Chancellor CFR  Marvin Kalb CFR  Irvine Levine CFR  P.G. Peterson CFR/TC  John Sawhill CFR/TC  ABC  Ray Adam CFR  Frank Cary CFR  T.M. Macioce CFR  Ted Koppel CFR  John Scali CFR  Barbara Walters CFR  CABLE NEWS NETWORK  Daniel Schorr CFR PUBLIC BROADCAST SERVICE  Hartford Gunn CFR  Robert McNeil CFR  Jim Lehrer CFR  C. Hunter-Gault CFR  Hodding Carter III CFR  ASSOCIATED PRESS  Keith Fuller CFR  Stanley Swinton CFR  Louis Boccardi CFR  Harold Anderson CFR  U.P.I.  H.L. Stevenson CFR  REUTERS  Michael Posner CFR  BOSTON GLOBE  David Rogers CFR  L.A. TIMES SYNDICATE  Tom Johnson TC  Joseph Kraft CFR/TC  BALTIMORE SUN  Henry Trewhitt CFR  CHICAGO SUN TIMES  James Hoge CFR/TC  MINNEAPOLIS STARR/TRIBUNE  John Cowles, Jr. CFR/TC  HOUSTON POST  William P. Hobby CFR  NEW YORK TIMES CO.  Richard Gelb CFR  James Reston CFR  William Scranton CFR/TC  A.M. Rosenthal CFR  Seymour Topping CFR  James Greenfield CFR  Max Frankel CFR  Jack Rosenthal CFR  Harding Bancroft CFR  Amory Bradford CFR  Orvil Dryfoos CFR  David Halberstram CFR  Walter Lippmann CFR  L.E. Markel CFR  H.L. Matthews CFR  John Oakes CFR  Harrison Salisbury CFR  A. Hays Sulzberger CFR  A. Ochs Sulzberger CFR  C.L. Sulzberger CFR  H.L. Smith CFR  Steven Rattner CFR  Richard Burt CFR  TIME INC.  Ralph Davidson CFR  Donald M. Wilson CFR  Louis Banks CFR  Henry Grunwald CFR  Alexander Herard CFR  Sol Lionwitz CFR/TC  Rawleigh Warner, Jr. CFR  Thomas Watson, Jr. CFR  NEWSWEEK/WASH. POST  Katherine Graham CFR  Philip Graham CFR  Arjay Miller TC  N. deB. Katzenbach CFR  Frederick Beebe CFR  Robert Christopher CFR  A. De Borchgrave CFR  Osborne Elliot CFR  Phillipo Geyelin CFR  Kermit Lausner CFR  Murry Marder CFR  Eugene Meyer CFR  Malcolm Muir CFR  Maynard Parker CFR  George Will CFR  Robert Kaiser CFR  Meg Greenfield CFR  Walter Pincus CFR  Murray Gart CFR  Peter Osnos CFR  Don Oberdorfer CFR  DOW JONES & CO.  (Wall Street Journal)  William Agee CFR  J. Paul Austin TC  Charles Meyer CFR  Robert Potter CFR  Richard Wood CFR  Robert Bartley CFR  Karen House CFR  NATIONAL REVIEW  Wm. F. Buckley, Jr. CFR  Richard Brookhiser CFR

==================================================================================================================
 

An interim report describing the discussions between the CIA and the Justice Dept in 1991 was sent to the National Security Council last week, according to department officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Why are these people afraid to speak publicly? The interim report was the first product of an inquiry by the Justice Dept's inspector general, one of several investigations ordered by President and COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS MEMBER Clinton into the CIA's activities in Guatemala.  Since 1966 every CIA Director has belonged to the Council on Foreign Relations. The CFR/CIA Directors are; Richard Helms (1966-73 Johnson), James R. Schlesinger (1973 Nixon), William E. Colby (1973-1976 Nixon), George Bush (1976-1977 Ford), Adm Stansfield Turner (1977-1981 Carter), William J. Casey (1981-1987 Reagan), William H. Webster (1987-1991 Reagan), Robert M. Gates (1991-1993 Bush), R. James Woolsey (1993- Clinton), and John Deutch, who replaced Woolsey as CFR member Clinton's CIA Director. Other investigations are under way at the CIA, the National Security Agency, the State Dept, the Army and the Intelligence Oversight Board. Separately, the FBI is investigating whether the NSA or Army intelligence destroyed files about the death of the American and of a Guatemalan rebel leader.  The National Security Council (NSC) was established by the National Security Act of 1947. The members of the NSC are: COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS MEMBER William J. Clinton (The President); Albert Gore, Jr. (Vice President); COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS MEMBER Warren M. Christopher (The Secretary of State); William J. Perry (The Secretary of Defense). The statuary advisors of the NSC are: COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS MEMBER R. James Woolsey (Director of the CIA); Gen. John M. Shalikashvili (Chairmen, Joint Chief of Staff). The Standing Participants of the NSC are: Robert E. Rubin (Secretary of the Treasury); COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS MEMBER Madeleine K. Albright (US Representative to the UN); Thomas f. McLarty III (Chief of Staff to the President); COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS MEMBER Anthony Lake (National Security Advisor to the President - Lake is also an NSC official); COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS MEMBER Laura D'Andrea Tyson ( President Clinton's Chief Economic Aide). National Security Council Officials are: COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS MEMBER Samuel R. Berger (Deputy National Security Advisor); COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS MEMBER Nancy E. Soderberg (Special Assistant to the President and Staff Directory; William H. Itho (Executive Secretary). The NSC advises and assists the President in integrating all aspects of national security policy as it affects the United States - domestic, foreign, military, intelligence, and economic affairs. It works in conjunction with the National Economic Council. The Chairmen of the National Economic Council is COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS MEMBER Laura D'Andrea Tyson. CFR member Clinton's Department of State Personnel who are members of the Council on Foreign Relations include; Deputy Secretary Clifton R. Wharton Jr., Under Secretary for Political Affairs Peter Tarnoff, Under Secretary for Management Richard Moose, Under Secretary for Global Affairs Timothy Wirth, Assistant Secretary for East Asian & Pacific Affairs Winston Lord (President of COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS and a Republican), Assistant Secretary for European & Canadian Affairs Stephen Oxman, Assistant Secretary for Intelligence & Research Tobi Gati and Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs Alexander Watson. Will an honest investigation be performed? Col. Julio Roberto Alpirez, said to have been on the CIA payroll, is alleged to have ordered the 1990 murder of Michael Devine, a US citizen and innkeeper in Guatemala. Alpirez has denied any responsibility in Devine's death.  In 1991, CIA officials, angry with Alpirez over the Devine killing, told the Justice Dept about the allegations against him in hopes of finding a way to take action against him, it was learned.  The CIA and Justice Dept explored the options for action against Alpirez for 3 or 4 months. During this time, they kept open the possibility of continuing CIA payments to Alpirez, who had dropped out of sight, in hope that the chance for additional payments would lure him into the open should they decide to act against him, it was learned.  But the Justice attorneys concluded that the only statute that allowed prosecution for killing a US citizen abroad could not be used in this case, according to 2 Justice officials.  The problem was the law, an antiterrorism statute, required that the killing be "intended to coerce, intimidate, or retaliate against a government or a civilian population" and that motive could not be ascribed to Alpirez, the officials said.  The Justice inspector general's inquiry is continuing; the interim report did not cover whether there were any CIA contacts with Justice over allegations that Alpirez directed the torture and murder in 1992 of Guatemalan guerrilla commander Efrain Bamaca Velasquez, who was married to an American lawyer.  CIA spokesman Vin Swasey said, "We just can't comment on stories about potential CIA sources." He cited the agency's earlier assertion that it did not learn about the killings until "well after they occurred" and then shared the information with appropriate government authorities. Is Vin Swasey telling the truth? Or is Swasey using a well known CIA technique - lying. In the early to mid-80's the CIA produced a small handbook called Psychological Operation's In Guerrilla Warfare. The manual was funded by the Iran-Contra affair. The manual was disseminated to a group of Nicaraguan rebels called the Nicaraguan Democratic Forces. In the United States this group is better known as the "contras" or anti-Sandinista rebels. The manual was based on material originating in April of 1968 at the Army Special Warfare School at Fort Bragg on psychological operations or "psy-ops". When its existence was first revealed the manual caused a storm of controversy. President Regan promised a detailed inquiry. However, only a few low-level CIA employees were reprimanded. The matter was then officially closed. The introduction to the manual offers the following insight into the twisted thinking of our so-called intelligence organizations,"This conception of guerrilla warfare as political war turns Psychological Operations into the decisive factor of the results. The target, then, is the minds of the population, all the population: our troops, the enemy troops and the civilian population. This manual is a manual for the training of guerrillas in psychological operations, and its application to the concrete case of the Christian and democratic crusade being waged in Nicaragua by the Freedom Commandos. Welcome!." The original manual suggested hiring professional criminals to stir up trouble at demonstrations so that people would be killed and martyrs created from among the contra ranks. Edgar Chammoro, the Nicaraguan Democratic Forces director of propaganda objected to this material and the pages that contained it were physically ripped from the first printing of the manuals. Was Col. Julio Roberto Alpirez, put on the CIA payroll as part of a psychological operation? What was the purpose of the operation? Who hired this professional criminal? Why was he hired? Also on Monday, House Speaker and COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS MEMBER Newt Gingrich (R- Ga.) said Rep. Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.) should resign from the House Intelligence Committee because he made public allegations US officials may have concealed knowledge of the killings. Gingrich is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Is Gingrich helping with the limited hangout? Is he attacking Torricelli to silence opposition to the illegal and amoral activities of the CIA? Council On Foreign Relations member William Colby did this to Michael J. Harrington, a member of House of Representatives Select Intelligence Committee in 1975. In 1975 a number of intelligence organizations were investigated by a Senate Select Intelligence Committee and a House of Representative Select Intelligence Committee. The Senate Select Committee was chaired by Nelson Rockefeller, the House Select committee was chaired by O. G. Pike. The intelligence organizations investigated included the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the National Security Council (NSC) and the National Security Agency (NSA). Mr. Colby was the director of the CIA. As the story unfolded numerous incidents of blatant unconstitutional activities were uncovered. A vast network of unlawful or uncontrolled domestic operations by the CIA resulted in creation of files on 300,000 individuals and organizations. CIA and FBI activities included mail openings, wiretapping, room bugging, burglaries, extensive monitoring of overseas telephone calls, secret drug testing and infiltration of American political groups. Among the American citizens on whom files were maintained were members of Congress. Among the American citizens whose mail was intercepted and opened were those who wrote letters to Dr Martin Luther King Jr and his wife Coretta, John D Rockefeller the 4th, Representative Bella Abzug, Richard Nixon, Hubert Humphry, Edward Kennedy, and Frank Church. The senate select committee had evidence that implicated the CIA in more than one assassination scheme including a CIA assassination plot in Chile. The House of Representatives Select Intelligence committee demanded unimpeded access to classified documents and other materials that the commission had subpoenaed from CIA Director William E Colby. Colby refused to transfer sensitive material in response to the subpoena. Michael J. Harrington, a member of House of Representatives Select Intelligence Committee, came under suspicion that he was a security risk. Harrington was dropped from the committee when he fought to disclose facts of CIA operations in Chile. It was CIA director William Colby who singled out Harrington as a security risk. Despite the illegalities, individuals such as Colby who were responsible for the initiation and implementation of these activities have never been tried convicted or punished for any wrong doing. COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS MEMBER Gingrich said Torricelli's allegations, which triggered some of the current investigations, should have been considered by the committee in closed session.  "I think he just decided to go ahead and cause a public embarrassment for the US," COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS MEMBER Gingrich said in a briefing for newspaper reporters. Although The Associated Press was not invited to the briefing, Gingrich's spokesman confirmed the comments.  Torricelli replied in a statement that all the information he relayed came from sources outside the Intelligence Committee.  "I'm satisfied there's no money going down there now," COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS MEMBER Christopher said on CBS' "Face the Nation." Christopher gave assurances that any intelligence officials involved in past misconduct in Guatemala will be disciplined.  One example of a "limited hangout" was the Church Committee's investigation of the CIA in the early 1980's. The committee learned nothing more about the assassination of foreign leaders, illicit drug programs, or the penetration of the news media than the CIA allowed it to discover. Do you believe COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS MEMBER Warren Christopher? Do you think Warren Christopher is afraid to lie? But the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), said on the same program that he was "very dissatisfied" with the situation and planned hearings this week on CIA funding for Guatemalan military leaders in the early 1990s.  COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS MEMBER Christopher would not go into the chronology of the CIA's ties in the Central American country but promised full disclosure once an investigation that COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS MEMBER Clinton ordered last week is completed.  After Devine's death, the COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS MEMBER Bush's administration suspended $7 million in military aid because the Guatemalan government refused to launch a serious investigation. But a $5 million CIA liaison program with the Guatemalan military was allowed to continue, a Bush appointee says. He says ending that program would have left the US government uninformed about drug trafficking and the country's civil war.  The investigation ordered by COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS MEMBER Clinton also encompasses the deaths of 2 American journalists, Nicholas Blake and Griffith Davis, in 1985.  Another limited hangout took place in 1986. In 1986 two secret U.S. Government operations were publicly exposed implicating Reagan Administration officials in illegal activities. These operations became known as the Iran-Contra Affair. A seven year investigation costing millions of dollars ensued. Only one person would spend any time in prison - he was found guilty of not paying his income taxes. The Office of Independent Counsel's report states "it is important to emphasize that both the Iran and contra operations, separately, violated the United States policy and law." Lawrence E. Walsh was Independent Counsel. In 1969 Walsh worked with CFR member Kissinger at the meetings on Vietnam in Paris. In 1981 Walsh worked for Crowe and Dunlevy a law firm representing Oil Companies, Air Lines, and Insurance Companies run by CFR members. Was the investigation designed to give the appearance that justice was served while in effect being a clever way of obstructing justice? Did CFR media members, lawyers, and judges, all profit monetarily from the publicity generated under the pretense of doing something important, while justice went unserved and the guilty went free? CFR members George Bush, Elliot Abrams, Casper Weinberger, Robert M. Gates, William J. Casey, and Robert C. McFarlane advised Regan to go ahead with Iran-Contra. On December 24, 1992, Bush pardoned fellow CFR members Weinberger, McFarlane, Abrams, and three CIA chiefs named Fiers, George, and Clarridge. Isn't there a conflict of interest apparent in this pardon? Isn't advising the President to break the law Treason? Why weren't the people involved charged with Treason? Have members of the intelligence community that belong to the CFR gained control of the government of the United States of America? In regard to Weinberger, Mr. Walsh explains: "...As detailed within this report, ... Weinberger advised ... Reagan in 1985 that the shipments were illegal. [His] opinion was shared by attorneys within the Department of Defense and the White House counsel's office ... ." Weinberger was using a tactic which consists of getting it on record that what you doing is illegal. If someone catches on, the record is produced and you claim innocence. Of course, if you really objected to the illegal activity, you would resign and advise the proper authorities. The OIC's investigation of Vice President Bush "did not develop evidence that proved that Vice President Bush violated any criminal statue. Contrary to his public pronouncements, however, he was fully aware of Iran arms sales....in December 1992 ... Bush failed to produce a diary containing... notes relevant to Iran/contra ... Bush refused to be interviewed ... leaving unresolved a clear picture of his Iran/Contra involvement. Bush's pardon of Weinberger ... preempted a trial in which defense counsel ... intended to call Bush as a witness." George Bush co-founded Zapata Petroleum; was a Texas congressman; served as UN ambassador; and replaced fellow CFR member William Colby as CIA director. Wasn't Walsh and the OIC aware of Bush's involvement in the intelligence community; the CFR and Trilateral commission; the oil industry through Zapata Petroleum; and that Bush had a vested interest in the Petroleum politics of the middle-east? Wouldn't a seven year investigation uncover these connections? Was Iran-Contra Reagan's idea or his advisors idea? If a president's advisors advise the President to do something illegal aren't they betraying the trust of the American people and guilty of Treason? Are CIA covert operations designed to purposely stir up trouble around the world, as an excuse for the United States to continue to effectively maintain the most powerful military establishment in our peacetime history? Is the real purpose of maintaining this powerful military establishment to protect and expand COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS members holdings throughout the world? One COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS family, the Rockefeller's, have assets in 125 nations. What are combined COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS member holdings? While economies go through inflation and depression, nations suffer famine and pestilence, and wars ravage and destroy, those that control money and power still prosper. COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS industries produce medicine, munitions, and food. Promoting an economy of unrest creates markets for COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS products. COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS business executives hold key positions within government policy councils and help their company dominate the economy through political connections. We are 4.7 trillion dollars in debt, and our legislatures are fighting over cutting lunches for school children. The CIA, employs more than 20,000 people. These people are trained to lie, and cheat and kill. The people that run this agency have no character. This agency is unnecessary, and should be disbanded.The cold war is over, the CIA and all other intelligence agencies should be dissolved -- including the National Security Council. All intelligence priorities of this country should be made known to the people. We are at peace -- what covert operations are being carried out by the CIA and other agencies? What are the purposes of these operations? What do these covert operations cost?

==================================================================================================================

CFR members in Nixon Administration

 

Adm. George W. Anderson, Jr. Chairman Foreign Intel. Advisory Board

Dr. George F. Baker, Advisory Council on Executive Organization

George Ball, Foreign Policy Consultant to the State Department

Jacob D. Beam, Ambassador to the Soviet Union

David E. Bell, Nat. Comm on Population Growth Amen Future

Lt. Gen. Donald V. Bennett, Dir Defense Intelligence Agency

C. Fred Bergsten, Operations Staff National Security Council

Robert O. Blake, Ambassador to Mali

Fred J. Borch, Comm International Trade and Investment Policy

Dr. Harold Brown, General Advisory Committee of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

William B. Buffum, Deputy Rep to the UN, Ambassador to Lebanon

Ellworth Bunker, Ambassador to South Vietnam

Frederick Burkhardt, Chair Nat. Comm Libraries and Info Services

Dr. Arthur Burns, Counselor to President, Chairman Board Federal Reserve succeeding CFR member Will McChesney Martin

Henry A. Byroade, Ambassador to the Philippines. Lincoln P. Bloomfield, Member Pres. Advisory Comm. for Observance of the 25th Anniversary of the UN

Courtney C. Brown, Comm. on Inter. Trade and Investment Policy

David K. E. Bruce, Chief of the US Delegation to the Paris Talks

Harlan Cleveland, NATO Ambassador

Richard N. Cooper Operations Staff the National Security Council

Philip K Crowe, Ambassador to Norway

Gardner Cowles, Board of Dir of Nat. Center for Voluntary Action

William B. Dale, Executive Director of International Monetary Fund

Nathaniel Davis, Ambassador to Chile

D. Douglas Dillon, General Advisory Committee of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

Seymour M. Finger, Alt. 25th Session of the Gen. Ass. of the UN

Harvey S. Firestone, Jr., Chairman Board of Gov. US Organization, Inc.

William C. Foster, General Advisory Committee of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

Thomas S. Gates, Chairman, comm all-volunteer armed forces

Carl J. Gilbert, Special Representative for Trade Negotiations

Gen. Andrew I Goodpaster, Supreme Allied Commander in Europe (succeeding CFR member Gen. Lyman Lemnitzer)

Kermit Gordon, General Advisory Committee of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency)

Joseph Adolph Greenland, US Rep. to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

Gen. Alfred M. Gruenther, Comm. for All-Volunteer Armed Forces

John W. Gardner, Board of Directors, National Center for Action. Richard Gardner, Member Comm Intern trade and Invest Policy

T. Keith Glennan, US Rep, International Atomic Energy Agency

Gordon Gray, Member, Pres. Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, Member Civilian Defense Advisory Council

Morton Halprin, Operations Staff of the National Security Council

Christian A. Herter, Jr. US and Canada International Joint Comm

Rev. Theodore M. Hesburgh, Chair. US Comm on Civil Rights

Samuel P. Huntington, Task Force on International Development

John N. Irwin II, Special Emissary to Peru

J. K. Jamieson, National Industrial Pollution Control Council

Sen. Jacob K. Javits, Rep. to 25th session of Gen. Ass. of the UN

Joseph E. Johnson Alt.Rep. 24th Sess. of the Gen. Ass. of the UN

Howard W. Johnson, Member National Commission on Productivity

James R. Killian, General Advisory Committee of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

William R. Kintner, member of Board of Foreign Scholarships

Henry A. Kissinger, Assistant to the Pres. for National Security Affairs, Chief Foreign Policy Advisor

Antoine T. Knoppers, Comm on Intern Trade and Invest Policy

Gen. George A. Lincoln, Dir. Office of Emergency Preparedness

Henry Cabot Lodge, Chief Negotiator at the Paris Peace Talks

George Cabot Lodge, Board of Directors, Inter-American Social Development Institute

Henry Loomis, Deputy Director of the USIA

Douglas MacArthur II, Ambassador to Iran

Robert McClintock, Ambassador to Venezuela

John J. McCloy, Chairmen, General Advisory Committee of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

Paul W. McCracken, Chairman Council of Economic Advisors

Edward S. Mason, Task Force on International Development

Charles A. Meyer, Assistant Secretary of State

Bradford Mills, President Overseas Private Invest Corporation

Franklin D. Murphy, Member Pres. Foreign Int. Advisory Board

Robert D. Murphy, Special Consultant on International Affairs

Paul H. Nitze, Senior member, US Delegation for Talks with the Soviet Union on Strategic Arms Limitations

Gen Lauris Norstad, Commission on an All-volunteer armed Force: Member, Gen Advi. Comm US Arms Control & Disarmament Agency

Alfred C. Neal, Comm on Intern Trade and Investment Policy

Roderick L. O'Conner, Assistant Administrator for East Asia of the Agency for International Development

Robert E. Osgood, Operations Staff National Security Council

Frank Pace, Jr., Member Pres. Foreign Intell Advisory Board

Richard F. Pedersen, Counselor of the State Department

John R. Petty, Ass. Sec of the Treasury for International Affairs

Christopher H. Phillips, Deputy Rep. In the UN Security Council

Alan Pifer, Consultant to the President on Educational Finance

Sen. Claiborne Pell, Rep. to 25th Sess of the Gen. Ass. of the UN

Isidor I Rabi, Consultant- Presidents Science Advisory Committee

Elliot L. Richardson, Undersecretary of State head of the Dept. of HEW

John Richardson, Jr., Ass. Sec. of State for Ed. Cultural Affairs

James Roche, Board of Dir., National Center for voluntary action

David Rockefeller, Task Force International Development

John D. Rockefeller III, Chairman, National Commission on Population Growth and the American Future

Nelson A. Rockefeller, Head of a Presidential Mission to Ascertain the Views of Leaders in Latin American Countries

Rodman Rockefeller,Advisory Council for Minority Enterprise

Robert V. Roosa, Task Force on International Development

Kenneth Rush, Ambassador to the Federal Republic of Germany

Dean Rusk, General Advisory Committee of US Arms Control

Nathaniel Samuels, Deputy Undersecretary of State

Adolph William Schmidt, Ambassador to Canada

Joseph J. Sisco, Ass. Sec. of State f Middle East and South Asia

Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg, Chairman Atomic Energy Commission

Gerard Smith, Dir. of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

Henry DeW. Smyth, Alternate Rep. of the 13th Session of the Gen. Conf. of International Atomic Energy Agency

Helmut Sonnenfeld, Operations Staff of the NSC

John R. Stevenson, Legal Advisor of the State Department

Frank Stanton, US Advisory Commission on Information

Robert Strausz-Hupe, Ambassador Ceylon and Maldive Republic

Leroy Stinebower, Member Commission on International Trade and Investment Policy

Maxwell D. Taylor, Chair Pres. Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board

Llewellyn Thompson, Senior Member US Delegation for SALT

Philip H. Trezise, Assistant Sec. of State

Cyrus Vance, Gen. Advisory Comm. of US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

Rawleigh Warner, Jr., Board of Trustees Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

Arthur K. Watson, Ambassador to France

Thomas Watson, Board of Dir. National Center for Voluntary Action

John Hay Whitney, Board of Dir. Corp. for Public Broadcasting

Francis O. Wilcox, Member Pres. Comm. Observance of the 25th Anniversary of the UN

Franklin Haydn Williams, Pres. Personal Rep. for the Negotiation of Future Political Status Territory of the Pacific Islands

Walter Wriston, Member National Comm. on Productivity

Charles W. Yost, Ambassador to the UN.