My web forums are archived here
until I can secure the donations to get my website back up. IF you would like to donate, you may do so by clicking on the donate button on this page.
Thank you to all of my viewers and followers.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
72 page military document on the NWO and CFR Download
pg. 13 pdf Isaiah Bowman, then a Council on Foreign Relations Director, wrote in November of 1939 that, “the matter is strictly confidential, because the whole plan would be ‘ditched’ if it became generally known that the State department is working in collaboration with any outside group.”
pg.17 pdf The Council on Foreign Relations, because of wealthy, influential members such as the Rockefellers, has been traditionally associated with the “elites” in America and has been referred to by some as representative of the “Eastern Establishment.” There are many conspiracy theories associated with the Council’s influence on American foreign affairs. This paper is not intended to adopt any of those theories, but to show that regardless of support for these theories, most students of the Council have concluded that there is substantial linkage between the Council and American foreign policy.
pg. 18-19 Carroll Quigley, a former Georgetown professor, who once taught President Clinton, provided the most intriguing commentary on the subject. In his 1966 mammoth 1300 plus page work, Tragedy and Hope—A History of the World in Our Time, Quigley commented on the conspiracy theory: “This radical Right fairy tale, which is now an accepted folk myth in many groups in America, pictured the recent history of the United States…as a well-organized plot by extreme Left-wing elements…to destroy the American way of life.”29 He goes on to further clarify that, “this myth, like all fables, does in fact have a modicum of truth. There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network…I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments.”30 Quigley continues: “The two ends of this English-speaking axis have sometimes been called, perhaps facetiously, the English and American Establishments. There is, however, a considerable degree of truth behind the joke, a truth which reflects a very real power structure.”31 The linchpin is that Quigley identifies the “American Establishment” half of the “Anglophile network” as the Council on Foreign Relations.32 These words probably provide the greatest testimony of the power and influence of the Council on Foreign Relations because they come from a man on the inside intimately familiar with the organization and its linkage to the foreign policy process.
pg.21 pdf Republican Congressman Carroll Reese, heading a Special Committee on Tax- Exempt Foundations, concluded the following in his final report published December 16, 1954 by the Government Printing Office: Miss Casey’s report (Hearings pp.8777, et seq.) shows clearly the interlock between The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and some of its associated organizations, such as the Council on Foreign Relations and other foundations, with the State Department…They have undertaken vital research projects for the Department; virtually created minor departments or groups within the Department for it; supplied advisors and executives from their ranks; fed a constant stream of personnel into the State Department trained by themselves or under programs which they have financed; and have had much to do with the formulation of foreign policy both in principle and detail.…They have, to a marked degree, acted as direct agents of the State Department.…What we see here is a number of large foundations, primarily The Rockefeller Foundation, The Carnegie Corporation of New York, and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, using their enormous public funds to finance a one-sided approach to foreign policy and to promote it actively, among the public by propaganda, and in the Government through infiltration. The power to do this comes out of the power of the vast funds employed.37
pg. 29 Richard Falk and other World Order Models Project (WOMP) contributors give credit to Mendlovitz as having “done much to shape the course of this world order journey” over the past 25 years.10 The WOMP provides probably the most idealistic vision for the new world order, concentrating on evolving a “transnational framework of world order values, thinking, and action.” 11 The four central world order values are: “(1) The minimization of large-scale collective violence; (2) the maximization of social and economic well-being; (3) the realization of fundamental human rights and conditions of political justice; (4) the rehabilitation and maintenance of environmental quality, including the conservation of resources.”12
pg 30 Hidemi Suganami, in his review of world order proposals, summarizes Falk’s new world order guiding principles asworld disarmament, establishment of an international police force to settle disputes, implementation of a global checks and balances system, and constitution of a coordinating body to provide unity to the global structure.16
pg 31-32 Later, in A Study of Future Worlds, Falk provides a specific strategy: “Symbolic world leaders such as the Secretary General of the United Nations or the Pope might espouse [the WOMP agenda]…as a program for the future, and national leaders in prosperous, homogenous, and stable countries of intermediate size such as Sweden or Canada may also be led to lend open support. These kinds of external developments, together with much more vital citizen efforts within the United States, would initiate a world order dialectic within American politics that would begin to break down decades of adherence to [the Westphalian system] and its infrastructure of values, perceptions, and institutions.”21
pg. 38-39 Burns H. Weston, another Constitutional Foundations of World Peace author, provides the most comprehensive strategy for achieving “credible” UN peacekeeping. He suggests: (1) guaranteeing military units trained for peacekeeping to the UN on a permanent standby basis; (2) stockpiling military equipment and supplies to support short notice peacekeeping operations; (3) avoiding the obstructions posed by the Security Council veto by instituting automatic peacekeeping actions based on predetermined levels of crisis or thresholds of conflict and automatic financing arrangements; (4) ensuring access to areas of conflict without requiring initial or continuing permission of the conflicting parties; and (5) tying UN peacekeeping to peacemaking to ensure focus on the desired end-state of long-term stability in the troubled area.8
pg 59. The intent of this paper was to derive some conclusions about the strategic environment and prospects for the new millennium based on the interpretation of George Bush’s new world order—where the “rule of law governs the conduct of nations,” and a “credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the UN’s founders.”1 This author’s perspective of Bush’s new world order will be briefly recapped . First, the Council on Foreign Relations and other closely linked organizations have significantly shaped the new world order vision and strategy for achievement of that vision. Second, those organizations have demonstrated a significant influence on the foreign policy process of the United States. Third, the new world order vision consists of a transition of sovereignty from the state to the international level; increased authority, security, and judicial powers of the United Nations; a shift in focus from national to “common” interests; collective vs. unilateral security actions; enhanced social and economic interdependence through functionalism; and some level of military disarmament of the nation states. Fourth, United Nations credibility is essential to the fulfillment of the new world order vision and contingent upon achievement of its envisioned peacekeeping/international police role of applying collective force against violators of the “rule of law.” And, fifth, the third attempt at new world order consists of a complex strategy involving the strengthening of the UN, enhancing regionalism, and increasing interdependence through piecemeal functionalism. The implications of new world orderism, taken independently, do not appear to be surprising revelations. Taken as a whole and taken within the context of the new world order vision laid out over the past chapters, these implications may raise some concern.