“The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalization, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy,” said Richard Haass, Director of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), in 2007. Haass has been the Council on Foreign Relations Director since 2003. This statement follows an article he wrote in 2006 where he stated, “. . . states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function. This is already taking place in the trade realm. Governments agree to accept the rulings of the WTO because on balance they benefit from an international trading order even if a particular decision requires that they alter a practice that is their sovereign right to carry out . . .” Acting to overthrow one’s government or to harm or kill its sovereign is one of the definitions of treason.

In 1979, Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), wrote an article titled, “Goldwater Sees Elitist Sentiments Threatening Liberties,” about the Council on Foreign Relations. Excerpts from the article include the following:

“In September 1939, two members of the Council on Foreign Relations visited the State Department to offer the council’s services. They proposed to do research and make recommendations for the department without formal assignment or responsibility, particularly in four areas – security armaments, economic and financial problems, political problems, and territorial problems. The Rockefeller Foundation agreed to finance the operation of this plan. From that day forward, the Council on Foreign Relations has placed its members in policy-making positions with the State Department and other federal agencies. EVERY SECRETARY OF STATE SINCE 1944, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF JAMES F. BYRNES, HAS BEEN A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL.

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

A NUMBER OF WRITERS, disturbed by the influential role that this organization has played in determining foreign policy, have concluded that the council and its members are an active part of the communist conspiracy for world domination. Their syllogistic argument goes like this: THE COUNCIL HAS DOMINATED AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY SINCE 1945. ALL AMERICAN POLICY DECISIONS HAVE RESULTED IN LOSSES TO THE COMMUNISTS. Therefore, all members of the council are communist sympathizers.

Many of the policies advocated by the council have been damaging to the cause of freedom and particularly to the United States. But this is not because the members are communists or communist sympathizers. This explanation of our foreign policy reversals is too pat, too simplistic. I believe that the Council on Foreign Relations and its ancillary elitist groups are indifferent to communism. They have no ideological anchors. IN THEIR PURSUIT OF A NEW WORLD ORDER, THEY ARE PREPARED TO DEAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE WITH A COMMUNIST STATE, A SOCIALIST STATE, a democratic state, a monarchy, an oligarchy – its all the same to them.

THEIR GOAL IS TO impose a benign stability on the quarreling family of nations through merger and consolidation. THEY SEE THE ELIMINATION OF NATIONAL BOUNDARIES, THE SUPPRESSION OF RACIAL AND ETHNIC LOYALTIES, as the most expeditious avenue to world peace. They believe economic competition is the root cause of international tension. Perhaps if the council’s vision of the future were realized, it would reduce wars, lessen poverty and bring about a more efficient utilization of the world’s resources. To my mind, THIS WOULD INEVITABLY BE ACCOMPANIED BY A LOSS IN PERSONAL FREEDOM OF CHOICE AND RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF THE RESTRAINTS THAT PROVOKED THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

When we change presidents, it is understood to mean that the voters are ordering a change in national policy. Since 1945, three different Republicans have occupied the White House for 16 years, and four Democrats have held this most powerful post for 17 years. With the exception of the first seven years of the Eisenhower administration, there has been no appreciable change in foreign or domestic policy direction. THERE HAS BEEN A GREAT TURNOVER IN PERSONNEL. BUT NO CHANGE IN POLICY. Example: DURING THE NIXON YEARS, HENRY KISSINGER, A COUNCIL MEMBER AND NELSON ROCKEFELLER PROTEGE, WAS IN CHARGE OF FOREIGN POLICY. WHEN JIMMY CARTER WAS ELECTED, KISSINGER WAS REPLACED BY ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI, A COUNCIL MEMBER AND DAVID ROCKEFELLER PROTEGE.

STARTING IN THE ’30S and continuing through World War II, our official attitude toward the Far East reflected the thinking of the Institute of Pacific Relations. Members of the institute were placed in important teaching positions. They dominated the Asian affairs section of the State Department. Their publications were standard reading material for the armed forces, in most American colleges, and were used in 1,300 public school systems. THE INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS WAS BEHIND THE DECISION TO CUT OFF AID TO CHIANG KAI-SHEK UNLESS HE EMBRACED THE COMMUNISTS, AND THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS IS THE PARENT ORGANIZATION OF THE INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS.

In 1962, Nelson Rockefeller, in a lecture at Harvard University on the interdependence of nations in the modern world, said: “And so the nation-state, standing alone, threatens in many ways to seem as anachronistic as the Greek city-state eventually became in ancient times.” Everything he said was true. We are dependent on other nations for raw materials and for markets. It is necessary to have defense alliances with other nations in order to balance the military power of those who would destroy us. WHERE I DIFFER FROM Rockefeller is in the suggestion that to achieve this new federalism, THE UNITED STATES MUST SUBMERGE ITS NATIONAL IDENTITY AND SURRENDER SUBSTANTIAL MATTERS OF SOVEREIGNTY TO A NEW POLITICAL ORDER.”

The goal of the globalists is a one-world government. To accomplish this, all countries in the world must gradually merge into one country. This is currently being done in Europe with the European Union. Approximately 25 countries in Europe are members of the Union. Once a country joins the EU, it gives up its sovereignty. Think that can’t happen in America? Well, think again.

One of the earliest reports of the globalists plan for America was announced on the Lou Dobbs’ show on June 9, 2005, when he said: “. . . an astonishing proposal to expand our borders to incorporate Mexico and Canada and simultaneously further diminish U.S. sovereignty. Have our political elites gone mad? We’ll have a special report. … Now, incredibly, a panel sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations wants the United States to focus not on the defense of our own borders, but rather create what effectively would be a common border that includes Mexico and Canada.” Another report on the show included the following: “On Capitol Hill, testimony calling for Americans to start thinking like citizens of North America and treat the U.S., Mexico and Canada like one big country.

Occasionally members and former members of the CFR will speak out about what the organization’s plans are for the future. One such person was Rear Admiral Chester Ward, who was a member of the CFR for 16 years and later warned the American people as to the true intentions of this treasonous operation: “The most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one objective in common – they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty of the national independence of the United States. A second clique of international members in the CFR comprises the Wall Street international bankers and their key agents. Primarily, they want the world-banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in the control of global government.”

Former Congressman John R. Rarick also had a warning about the organization: The CFR, dedicated to one-world government, financed by a number of the largest tax-exempt foundations, and wielding such power and influence over our lives in the areas of finance, business, labor, military, education and mass communication media, should be familiar to every American concerned with good government and with preserving and defending the U.S. Constitution and our free-enterprise system. Yet, the nation’s right to know machinery – the news media – usually so aggressive in exposures to inform our people, remain conspicuously silent when it comes to the CFR, its members and their activities.

In 2008, Richard Haass, CFR Director, advised Obama on foreign policy issues, in addition to some Republicans. Remember, during the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama told audiences to “judge me by the people with whom I surround myself.”

The Council on Foreign Relations is a secretive organization because it does not publicly announce its agenda or decisions, nor does it allow anyone to join without an invitation, and then only after determining a candidate’s likelihood to favor globalization.

The Council on Foreign Relations is an invitation-only membership group made up of about 4,000 people that comprise what many observers consider to be the shadow government of America. The CFR is more than a ‘think tank’, it is a network of elitists that control America by creating policies, laws, financial alliances and monopolies. In March of 2010, the CFR released a new video, starring such diverse personalities as Angelina Jolie, Chuck Hagel, Brian Williams, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, promoting the CFR as a wonderful place where people meet to discuss policy, thus giving the impression that all points of view are represented and implemented with the public’s best interests at heart.

Some of its members include bankers (Timothy Geithner, Henry Paulson, Alan Greenspan, Paul Volcker, and World Bank President Robert Zoellick), Secretaries of State (Henry Kissinger, Condoleeza Rice, Hillary Clinton), Supreme Court Justices (Ruth Bader-Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer), corporate titans (George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Dick Cheney), mainstream media (mainstream media is manipulated by the CFR- Katie Couric, Bill Moyers, Diane Sawyer, Tom Brokaw), foreign heads of state (Mikhail Gorbachev, Benyamin Netanyahu and Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe), religious leaders (the Dalai Lama, Richard Land, and Rick Warren) and entertainers (Shirley Temple, Angelina Jolie, and Fred Thompson).

Membership in the CFR includes individuals and corporations. Some of the more notable corporations that enjoy CFR membership include AIG, BP, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Google, Merck, NASDAQ, Pfizer and VISA.

The truth about the CFR is that it is a global agenda organization filled with collectivists who advocate depopulation and covert control over America and the world. An example of this is a quote by Zbigniew Brzezinski (co-founder of the Trilateral Commission and former US National Security Advisor): “I once put it rather pungently, and I was flattered that the British Foreign Secretary repeated this, as follows: … namely, in early times, it was easier to control a million people, literally it was easier to control a million people than physically to kill a million people. Today, it is infinitely easier to kill a million people than to control a million people. It is easier to kill than to control….”

rockefellerDavid Rockefeller, honorary chairman of the CFR, is also the founder of the Trilateral Commission (a secretive members-only group with designs to remove the borders between Canada, U.S. and Mexico in the pursuit of eventual world governance), his family founded the Population Council (with its roots in eugenics, which is the philosophy of improving the human gene pool through selective breeding, historically, it has sometimes been accomplished through brutal means such as forced sterilization and genocide) and he is a banker, famous for this quote: “For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists” and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

Hillary Clinton, a CFR, has explicitly confirmed what critics of the CFR have often charged: that the Council unofficially runs the U.S. State Department, and has virtually taken control of the entire executive branch of the federal government, regardless of which party may occupy the White House. In a famous speech at the Council on Foreign Relations’ Washington, D.C., office in 2009, Secretary Clinton referred to the CFR’s Pratt House headquarters in New York City as the “mother ship” and said she had been there often. She was glad, she said, that the CFR’s new Washington headquarters is so close to the State Department, making it easier to be “told what we should be doing and how we should think.” Here is the opening paragraph of her address, after being introduced by CFR President Richard Haass: “Thank you very much, Richard, and I am delighted to be here in these new headquarters. I have been often to, I guess, the mother ship in New York City, but it’s good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department. We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.”

Here’s an example of how the CFR controls the President of the United States:  The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, commonly referred to as the National Security Advisor (abbreviated NSA, or sometimes APNSA or ANSA to avoid confusion with the abbreviation of the National Security Agency), serves as the chief adviser to the President of the United States on national security issues. This person serves on the National Security Council within the Executive Office of the President. The National Security Advisor’s office is located in the West Wing of the White House. He or she is supported by a staff that produces research, briefings, and intelligence for the NSA to review and present to the National Security Council and the President of the United States.

The National Security Advisor is appointed by the President without confirmation by the United States Senate. As such, they are not connected to the bureaucratic politics of the Departments of State and Defense, and are therefore able to offer independent advice. The power and role of the National Security Advisor varies from administration to administration.

In times of crisis, the National Security Advisor operates from the White House Situation Room, updating the President on the latest events of a crisis.

The current office holder is retired Marine Corps General James L. Jones, who assumed the duties of the post when Barack Obama was sworn into office on January 20, 2009, as President of the United States. The previous holder of the post was Stephen Hadley, who succeeded Condoleezza Rice upon her appointment to Secretary of State by then-President George W. Bush in 2005.

It certainly sounds like the National Security Advisor reports to the President.  Yet according to a Whitehouse press release in 2009, General Jones said the following at the 45th Munich Security Conference: “Thank you for that wonderful tribute to Henry Kissinger yesterday. Congratulations. As the most recent National Security Advisor of the United States, I take my daily orders from Dr. Kissinger, filtered down through Generaal (sic) Brent Scowcroft and Sandy Berger, who is also here. We have a chain of command in the National Security Council that exists today.”

Even the Council on Foreign Relations isn’t immune to computer hacking. On December 28, 2012, it was reported that hackers traced to China carried out an advanced cyberespionage attack against one of America’s most elite foreign policy web groups, the website of the Council on Foreign Relations. According to private computer-security forensic specialists, the hacking incident involved a relatively new type of ploy called a “drive-by” website cyber attack. The specialists, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the attack involved penetrating the computer server that operates the New York City-based CFR’s website and then using the pirated computer system to attack CFR members and others who visited or “drove by” the site.

On September 25, 2014, Bush-era State Department bureaucrat Stewart Patrick proclaimed President Obama’s Orwellian address to the United Nations General Assembly as “one of the most impressive speeches of his presidency,” on the Council on Foreign Relations website.

“Unlike many of Obama’s speeches, which have a professorial tendency to pull their punches, today’s address showed steely determination and a refreshing willingness to offend in delivering uncomfortable truths,” Patrick wrote in a post titled “President Obama’s UN Speech: Defending World Order.” Patrick claimed, “For a president who prides himself on ‘hitting singles,’ it looks like he got a runner home today.” But anyone who actually read the text of Obama’s September 24 United Nations address would be left wondering what Patrick was talking about, as the speech seemed to be channeling the spirit of George Orwell’s “Big Brother” character in the dystopian novel 1984: it contained multiple flat-out contradictions that brought to memory Big Brother’s dictum “War is Peace.”

Toward the beginning of his speech, Obama proclaimed, “The very existence of this institution [the United Nations] is a unique achievement — the people of the world committing to resolve their differences peacefully, and to solve their problems together.” But just a few sentences later, he insisted: “First, all of us — big nations and small — must meet our responsibility to observe and enforce international norms.” And by “enforce international norms,” Obama meant, “First, the terrorist group known as ISIL must be degraded and ultimately destroyed.” In reality, the United Nations is not a unique achievement at all.

The first attempt at world government was called the League of Nations. It was founded in January, 1920, following the end of World War I. At its peak of influence in 1934-1935, it had 58 nation members. Then world tensions began building towards another war. Soon Germany, Japan, Italy, Spain, and other countries withdrew from the League. The goal of the League had been to prevent any future world war, but it completely failed in that goal when World War II began in 1939. The League lasted for 26 years, but was replaced by the United Nations in 1946, after the end of World War II. The UN inherited many of the agencies and organizations of the League.

HOW THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS ORCHESTRATES WORLD EVENTS — 

As President Roosevelt, a CFR, once said, “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.” Since politics seems to be involved in almost everything today, then it must be true that anything that happens was planned to happen that way. A few of the more recent events orchestrated by the CFR are described below.

In 2008, there was a major economic crisis that echoed throughout the world. As a result, most of the world slipped into recession. Although the recession in the United States technically ended in 2009, most people do not feel the recession has ended more than six years later! Some of the major players in the economic crisis are members of the Council on Foreign Relations, including the following:

In 2006, when Bush named Henry Paulson, the CEO of Goldman Sachs (a CFR corp), to head the Treasury, the CFR explained the president’s agenda in an op-ed piece: “Bush essentially set five goals for the new Treasury secretary. Keep taxes low. Curb federal government spending to curb the budget deficit. Deal with international imbalances. Keep investment markets open. Support innovation and risk-taking in the private sector to boost US economic growth…. Paulson is the right man at the right time to take on issues like these.” Despite the fact that IndyMac had failed only days before, on July 20, 2008, Paulson reassured the public that “it’s a safe banking system, a sound banking system. Our regulators are on top of it. This is a very manageable situation.” Paulson has been identified as a key figure in the economic debacle that began in 2008, Time magazine stated, “If there is a face to this financial debacle, it is now his.” In 2006, Forbes magazine estimated Paulson’s personal wealth to be $700 million. Noting that Goldman Sachs got the lion’s share of taxpayer bailout money—$12.9 billion—an economics and law professor that lead the prosecution during the savings and loan scandal in the 1980s declared, “Now, in most stages in American history, that would be a scandal of such proportions that he wouldn’t be allowed in civilized society…. The tragedy of this crisis is it didn’t need to happen at all.”

On November 24, 2008, Larry Summers, a Treasury Secretary under Clinton and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, was appointed by President Obama to be the Director of the National Economic Council. He is an advocate of cutting both corporate and capital gains taxes and convinced Clinton to sign into law several Republican bills that allowed banks to expand their powers. One of these bills repealed the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, which prevented the merger of commercial banks, insurance companies, and brokerage firms such as Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch. Additionally, Summers supported the Commodity Futures Modernization Act just before the 2000 election, which denied the governmental Commodity Futures Trading Corporation the ability to conduct oversight on the trading of financial derivatives. He also collected $2.7 million in speaking fees from Wall Street companies that had received government bailout money.

While Summers was Treasury Secretary, his protege, the Under Secretary for International Affairs, was Timothy Geithner. In 2002, under the George W. Bush administration, Geithner left the Treasury Department to join the Council on Foreign Relations as a senior Fellow in the International Economics Department. Geithner, who was also a protege of Henry Kissinger (a BB, CFR, and TC), had previously served as president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. On January 26, 2009, Geithner was confirmed as Treasury Secretary under President Obama. A Princeton-educated economics researcher wrote that during the credit crisis, Geithner’s “dirty little secret” was that he only tried to save the five largest banks — banks that held “96% of all US bank derivative positions in terms of nominal value, and an eye-popping 81% of the total net credit risk exposure in event of default.” The five banks holding the most derivatives are, in declining order, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Citibank, Goldman Sachs, and Wells Fargo. The leadership of these banks is full of Council on Foreign Relations members.

On July 8, 2009, the Council on Foreign Relations said it favors granting legal status to many of the roughly 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S., creating a guest worker program for low-skilled foreign workers to come and work in the U.S and opposes local police getting to conduct immigration raids. The CFR also said local police should not take lead roles in immigration enforcements and workplace raids.

The CFR’s recommendations on guest workers and amnesty mirror plans to be pushed in Congress by Obama. Arizona State university professor Raul H. Yzaguirre and former Florida governor Jeb Bush served on the CFR task force that wrote the recommendations.

U.S. Sen. John McCain, former Arizona governor Bruce Babbitt, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Arizona State University President Michael Crow and Thunderbird School of Global Management president Angel Cabrera are Arizonans that are CFR members.

In 2012, the same year of an Al-Qaeda terrorist attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya, that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans, the Council on Foreign Relations said that we need Al-Qaeda, because they make up over 60% of the best fighters.

Foremost among the groups that have been driving the global warming alarm bandwagon is the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations. There are many think tanks affecting national policies, but the CFR, long ranked as the premier brain trust, is still the most influential. On December 4, 2012, it was reported that the UN Climate Summit in Doha will carry the CFR imprint in many ways, as have virtually all previous global conferences. Representing the U.S. government in Doha is President Obama’s Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern. Stern, who was previously a White House assistant to President Bill Clinton, played a role in U.S. negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. He was selected as Climate Envoy by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Todd Stern is a longtime member of the CFR.

In “A Transitional Climate Summit in Doha,” a November 28, 2012, CFR “Expert Brief” by Michael A. Levi, director of the Council’s Program on Energy Security and Climate Change, we are told that global climate change “threatens intensifying damages primarily in the future but requires strong action to curb emissions now.”

Levi, who is the CFR’s top guru on climate change, is surely aware by now of the overwhelming evidence, including admissions by some of the top alarmists, that there has been no measurable global warming for the past 16 years, all of the media horror stories and Al Gore pronouncements about impending Climate Armageddon notwithstanding. And he must surely be aware that no evidence supports the contention that a government-forced reduction of emissions by the United States would have any impact whatsoever on global temperatures. However, the financial, social, and political costs would be horrendous. As critics point out, it is a prescription for “all pain and no gain,” except for the politically connected, who stand to gain immense wealth and power under the proposed UN global climate regime.

Levi ignores the steadily mounting evidence to promote the CFR’s ongoing globalist line. “International climate diplomacy provides the United States with opportunities to leverage domestic action for greater impact abroad,” says Levi. “But the United States still falls well short of what it must do at home to reduce its emissions to ever lower levels.”

In a February 21, 2006 column entitled, “State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era,” Haass stated that, “Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change. Under one such arrangement, the Kyoto Protocol, which runs through 2012, signatories agree to cap specific emissions. What is needed now is a successor arrangement in which a larger number of governments, including the US, China, and India, accept emissions limits.”

“All of this suggests that sovereignty must be redefined if states are to cope with globalization,” Haass said. “At its core, globalization entails the increasing volume, velocity, and importance of flows — within and across borders — of people, ideas, greenhouse gases, goods, dollars, drugs, viruses, e-mails, weapons and a good deal else, challenging one of sovereignty’s fundamental principles: the ability to control what crosses borders in either direction.”

According to Haass and the CFR, the only answer to this predicament is a progressive weakening of national sovereignty and a steady move to global government. “Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker,” says Haass. “States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary.”

Haass opines that “Our notion of sovereignty must therefore be conditional, even contractual, rather than absolute.” Which, of course, means that our Constitution, which specifically defines and limits the powers of the U.S. federal government, would be completely conditional, at the whim of those who are defining what our sovereignty consists.

“The goal,” says Haass “should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalization, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy.”

World government or anarchy — those are our only options, according to the CFR. During the decades of the 1960s through the 1990s, the internationalists muted their calls for world government, preferring fuzzier labels, such as “international law,” “the rule of law,” and “interdependence” to avoid generating the popular alarm that a transparent attempt to subject U.S. citizens to UN rule would engender. However, since they have been already wildly successful, over the past several decades, in building the superstructure of a UN-based world government they are dropping much of the pretense and more boldly asserting true objectives.

On a global scale, the CFR influences an even wider audience of opinion molders, policymakers, and legislators through its Council of Councils, an important adjunct of the CFR’s International Institutions and Global Governance (IIGG) program. The Council of Councils is a formal association of 25 of the CFR’s “sister” organizations. These include: Canada’s Center for International Governance Innovation; the French Institute of International Relations; the German Institute for International and Security Affairs; Italy’s Institute of International Affairs; the Polish Institute of International Affairs; and, of course, Britain’s The Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA), also known as Chatham House.

On August 7, 2012, Senior Council on Foreign Relations Fellow Ed Husain cheered the presence of Al-Qaeda terrorists in Syria, praising their fighting prowess in aid of FSA rebels while also lauding the increasing number of successful bombings carried out by Al-Qaeda fighters. In case you didn’t get the memo – Al-Qaeda – the same group the United States accuses of carrying out the most devastating terrorist attack on U.S. soil in history, is now our ally in Syria. Terrorist attacks carried out by Al-Qaeda in Syria are inherently moral and good. Down is the new up.

“The Syrian rebels would be immeasurably weaker today without al-Qaeda in their ranks. By and large, Free Syrian Army (FSA) battalions are tired, divided, chaotic, and ineffective. Feeling abandoned by the West, rebel forces are increasingly demoralized as they square off with the Assad regime’s superior weaponry and professional army,” writes Husain, a Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies with the CFR.

Husain goes on to celebrate the fact that Al-Qaeda’s role in carrying out terrorist bombings in cities like Damascus and Aleppo has intensified, writing that “The group’s strength and acceptance by the FSA are demonstrated by their increasing activity on the ground –from seven attacks in March to sixty-six “operations” in June.”

However, by the end of his article Husain is using the presence of Al-Qaeda fighters in Syria – put there with the aid of NATO powers – as another reason for military intervention in Syria. “The planning to minimize al-Qaeda’s likely hold over Syrian tribes and fighters must begin now as the Obama administration ramps up its support to rebel groups,” he writes.

As the London Guardian has documented (in glowing terms), far from there being a distinction between the FSA rebels and Al-Qaeda terrorists, the Al-Qaeda fighters, along with hordes of foreign fighters including many veterans of NATO’s previous act of regime change in Libya, are now commanding the rebels.

“We have clear instructions from our [al-Qaida] leadership that if the FSA need our help we should give it. We help them with IEDs and car bombs. Our main talent is in the bombing operations,” said former FSA rebel turned Al-Qaeda commander Abu Khuder, adding that Al-Qaeda fighters meet “every day” with Syrian rebels.

soros-godquoteOn September 6, 2013, it was reported that the Brookings Institution, which is partially funded by George Soros (a CFR), wrote an article in March 2012, about saving Syria. The article, however, was about destroying Syria by destroying the Assad regime. The Council on Foreign Relations has been planning to destabilize Syria for the last 2-4 years, or more.

According to the Brookings article, the option they thought would work best would be an invasion with troops, to be paid for by the European Union and Arab states. According to British reports, the Pentagon knew in 2012 that it would take 75,000 ground troops to secure Syria’s chemical weapons facilities. This was before any of the chemical weapons attacks happened in Syria and were blamed on the Assad regime, when in fact they had been carried out by the rebels. The object of getting rid of Assad is to neutralize Syria so the CFR can go after Iran.

It appears that the Brookings Institution and the Council on Foreign Relations have been planning to destabilize Syria to get rid of Assad for a long time, possibly with other think tanks as well. They knew they were going to have to send ground troops in there, but they needed a pretext to do it. A good excuse could be chemical weapons.

The article also identifies the FSA as the “good guys” that the United States should support in case things don’t work out the way they want them to, because the FSA would be a group that could be used later. There are no “good guys” in the Syrian opposition. All of the different factions have been heavily infiltrated by mercenaries and Al-Qaeda members.

On January 27, 2014, it was reported that the Council on Foreign Relations had called on the Obama administration to ‘befriend’ a terrorist group in Syria which has pledged allegiance to Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri and whose leader helped plan the 9/11 attacks. In an article entitled, The Good and Bad of Ahrar al-Sham: An al Qaeda–Linked Group Worth Befriending, the CFR’s Michael Doran, William McCants, and Clint Watts argue that supporting the terrorist faction would help the United States “contain Iran and Syria” as part of Obama’s “larger strategy.” The authors even admit that the leader of Ahrar al-Sham, Abu Khalid al-Suri, recently “published a statement praising bin Laden and al Qaeda’s current chief, Ayman al-Zawahiri,” underscoring the fact that, “Al Qaeda and Ahrar al-Sham are joined at the hip.”

According to reports, al-Suri, real name Mohamed Bahaiah, is a “longtime al Qaeda operative who worked as a courier for the terror network,” is al-Zawahiri’s representative in the Levant, and even “delivered surveillance tapes of the World Trade Center and other American landmarks to al Qaeda’s senior leadership in Afghanistan in early 1998.” According to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, “Other al Qaeda operatives hold key positions” with Ahrar al-Sham.

So essentially, the CFR, which is basically a front for the State Department, is now calling on the Obama administration to make an alliance with an Al-Qaeda group whose leader helped plan the 9/11 attacks – all in the name of destabilizing Iran and Syria.

The article goes on to claim that Obama can justify supporting Ahrar al-Sham because, “not all terrorist organizations pose an equal threat to the United States and its allies,” despite the fact that the group is allied with terrorists who share the same vision of Sharia law across the region while they ransack Christian churchesburn U.S. flags, chant anti-American slogans and sing the praises of Osama Bin Laden while glorifying the 9/11 attacks. Ahrar al-Sham is currently fighting alongside the Free Syrian Army, which has been backed to the tune of billions of dollars from the U.S. and the UK and is currently being represented as part of the “opposition” camp at the Geneva II peace talks.

This is not the first time the CFR has praised Al-Qaeda and called on the U.S. to get behind the terror group in Syria. As was reported in August 2012, Council on Foreign Relations fellow Ed Husain hailed the presence of Al-Qaeda fighters in Syria at a time when the media was still treating their existence as a conspiracy theory. Husain even lauded the “deadly results” that Al-Qaeda militants had been able to achieve in the form of terrorist bombings.

On May 14, 2014, it was reported that just five giant corporations control 90% of U.S. mass media. And direct links connect all five of these media conglomerates to the political establishment and the economic and political power-elites of the United States. These five conglomerates are Time Warner, Disney, Murdochs’ News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS). Their control spans most of the newspapers, magazines, books, radio and TV stations, movie studios, and much of the web news content of the United States. These conglomerates are in large measure responsible for inculcating the social, political, economic, and moral values of both adults and children in the United States.

It was not always like this. Immediately after World War II three out of four U.S. newspapers were independently owned. But the media-control numbers have been shrinking ever since then due to mergers, acquisitions, and other processes. By 1983, 50 corporations controlled 90% of U.S. media. But today just five giant conglomerates control 90% of what most Americans read, watch, and listen to.

It is notable and should be emphasized that all the five major media conglomerates are corporate members of the Council on Foreign Relations. This organization is a U.S. think-tank whose members have been instrumental in formulating U.S. government policies resulting in sanctions, destabilization efforts, and outright military attacks on nations which have never attacked the US. The Council’s members’ activities helped to promote the Iraq war, the bombings of Serbia and Libya, and the recent overthrow of the elected government of the Ukraine. The promotion of these policies by the media conglomerates which belong to the Council has been key to preparing the American public to accept these policies.

The media conglomerates’ fellow members of the Council on Foreign Relations include a substantial number of large corporations, powerful CEO’s, and present and former government officials. One prominent member is former U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, whose doctrine calling for U.S. control of the Eurasian landmass, which includes Russia and China, is one of the guiding elements in U.S. foreign policy.

It should also be noted that the conglomerates themselves are giant corporations. They are among the largest companies in the world. They contribute to both of America’s big parties, the Republicans and Democrats, while supporting their policies. U.S. media companies have also received from the Reagan, Clinton, and Bush administrations progressively greater media deregulation, which permitted ever greater media ownership concentration, culminating for the first time in allowing all the media in a community or city to be owned by one company.

News Corp owns Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, Barrons weekly, the London times, far Eastern Economic review, the New York Post, and hundreds of other large and small city and community newspapers, magazines, and internet properties. Time-warner owns Time Magazine, Fortune Magazine, People Magazine, Sports Illustrated, CNN news group, Turner networks and movies, Warner brothers films, DC Comics, Times online systems, and much more. And Disney is not just about Mickey Mouse Cartoons these days, as it owns ABC Television, magazine publishing business, Disney Films, Lucas Films, and a huge number of other media and entertainment enterprises.

Now let us perform a thought experiment to see how far the conglomerates can go to support government foreign policies. Imagine that U.S. policy-makers decide a few years from now that the current U.S.-supported and unelected Ukrainian ‘government’ no longer serves their interests. They might then announce that this government is ‘undemocratic’‘is a human rights violator’ or that it is a ‘failed state’ and that ‘there must be ‘regime change’ to ‘protect the Ukrainian people.’ Following suit, the media conglomerates would then ‘sound the alarm.’ They would ‘discover’ the reality – which has existed all along – that “fascist or extreme-right forces are part of the coup-imposed Ukrainian ‘government,” that there is a “history of anti-Semitism,” “murders of ethnic-minorities,”and conclude that the U.S. government is right and a humanitarian intervention to remove the government is required.

Is this scenario an impossible one? Not at all. It is precisely how the repressive and brutal government of Saddam Hussein, to cite just one example, was dealt with. For many years he was praised by U.S. officials as a “stalwart ally” and sent billions of dollars’ worth of military aid – and the media conglomerates went along for the ride. Then, in the twinkling of an eye he was converted by the U.S. government – and by the media – into a “tyrant,” a “ruthless killer,” a possessor of “weapons of mass destruction” aimed at the U.S.; and a man whose country must be invaded.

The CFR, as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has readily admitted, drives U.S. foreign policy.

An August 20, 2014, tweet by CFR Director Haass foreshadowed an expansion of U.S. military action following the Pentagon’s attacks of little consequence on ISIS following the theatrical Mount Sinjar incident and the vastly overstated Yazidis humanitarian situation reported earlier in the month.

The real objective is not defending Iraq or the preservation of ethnic and religious minorities there, including Christians, but rather serves as an elaborately constructed excuse to enter Syria and take out the al-Assad regime, thus far a difficult task, even for ISIS, the terror army trained by the U.S. military.

On August 27, 2014, the Council on Foreign Relations, the globalist organization that instructs the State Department in foreign policy decisions, said that, “since Assad has demonstrated he is unable to govern and keep the peace within Syria, the United States need not validate the regime’s legitimacy by acknowledging Assad’s threat that, ‘Any strike which is not coordinated with the government will be considered as aggression.’”

The Syrian government is “unable to govern and keep the peace” because the United States, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and others have waged a proxy war against the government and its security apparatus. This war, characterized in the West as a civil war, has included the participation of ISIS, a force trained by the U.S. military in Jordan.

The State Department then announced it has no intention of seeking permission to conduct military operations in Syria. “I think when American lives are at stake, when we’re talking about defending our own interests, we’re not looking for the approval of the Syrian regime,” a State Department spokeswoman said. Exactly whose interests are we defending? The United States or the globalists?

On September 29, 2014, it was reported that a series of articles in this month’s Foreign Affairs magazine, a publication of the Council on Foreign Relations, reveals how the establishment is desperate to “co-opt” the political populist uprising that has swept the United States and Europe in recent years.

In an introduction to the series of essays, Foreign Affairs editors Gideon Rose and Jonathan Tepperman note how the rise of Tea Party sentiment in the United States and its equivalent in Europe comes as a result of increasing disenfranchisement with the political system. According to the authors, this necessitates the need for political leaders to “co-opt and channel popular passions, addressing political outsiders’ legitimate grievances while bypassing their simplistic solutions.” In other words, the threat posed by grass roots populism across the western world represents a major challenge to the existing world order embraced by the CFR and must be hijacked and misdirected in order to have its potency diffused.

The central essay which outlines the CFR’s perspective on the challenges posed by populism is entitled Pitchfork Politics: The Populist Threat to Liberal Democracy. The piece highlights how the rise of populism stems from the “diminished….ability of democratic governments to satisfy their citizens,” namely the “long term stagnation in living standards and deep crises of national identity.” The author emphasizes how populist ideas should be entertained but that voters must be convinced “that the simple solutions offered up by the populists are bound to fail.”

One of the primary groups that has flourished in alignment with the re-emergence of populism is “antistatist populists” who “see the state itself as the greatest threat to their liberty and their lifestyle,” states the author, while wishing “to be as free as possible from its corrupting influence.” He identifies the likes of Senator Rand Paul, UKIP’s Nigel Farage, and France’s Marine Le Pen as the leaders of “antistatism” who pose the biggest threat to the existing order, which he characterizes as “a system in which a small number of long-standing political parties alternate in government on a semiregular basis, resulting in reasonably moderate changes to public policy,” in other words – the two party monopoly.

In the final part of his essay, the author explains how the elite must work to extinguish the populist uprising by harnessing “the passion of the populists to the cause of reinvigorating governance, but without helping them kindle the flames of an antidemocratic revolt.” This includes rallying populists behind “wealth redistribution” and a “more serious attempt to tax wealth.” The author acknowledges that the establishment may have to make some concessions in order to appease populists, including the EU giving up its commitment to “an ever closer union.” The author concludes by warning that the threat to the establishment posed by populism “is here to stay for the foreseeable future.”

The fact that the CFR has devoted a substantial chunk of its publication to addressing the threat posed by populism again underscores how the establishment is in a blind panic about the rise of Tea Party sentiment in the run up to 2016, as well as the burgeoning Euroskeptic revolt that has swept the continent in recent years. The CFR’s need to “co-opt” such a movement and divert it away from having any kind of genuine impact illustrates how the political elite is resolute in its bid to derail the populist revolt and will resort to underhanded measures to do so.

On December 3, 2014, an article was published on the CFR website that said Obama “did the right thing” by running around Congress to enact amnesty for illegals despite “accusations of an imperial presidency,” and encouraged him to sign more executive orders on “climate change.”   “Based on what we’ve seen in just one month, my bet is on a lot more to come,” CFR insider Julia E. Sweig wrote. “On immigration, the president defied an obstreperous Congress and used his executive powers to give as many as five million people legal status in the United States…The political calculus is clear enough—most of those who will acquire legal status are likely over time to vote for Democrats, unless the Republican Party can reinvent itself as more inclusive and representative.”

But CFR’s Edward Alden criticized Obama’s executive action for not granting amnesty to every illegal in the U.S. “Of the eleven and a half million unauthorized immigrants estimated to be living in the United States, only half will be allowed to remain permanently,” he complained. “The executive action fails to address the long waits for green cards that face many undocumented migrants, and the restrictive quotas for highly-skilled immigrants.”

The CFR, which can be best described as a “shadow government” due to its extensive “invitation-only” membership of U.S. and world leaders, has long advocated a “North American Union” designed by the Trilateral Commission which would combine the U.S., Mexico and Canada into a political entity at the expense of both U.S. national sovereignty and individual rights.

“We are asking the leaders of the United States, Mexico, and Canada to be bold and adopt a vision of the future that is bigger than, and beyond, the immediate problems of the present,” CFR member and former Canadian Deputy Prime Minister John P. Manley wrote. “They could be the architects of a new community of North America, not mere custodians of the status quo.”

An EU-style North American Union would be easier to implement if the U.S. lacks effective borders, which Obama has ensured through his executive amnesty, and if any resistance from Congress is neutered, which Obama has also done by usurping the lawmaking power of Congress through executive orders.

ORIGINS OF THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS — 

In the 1960’s, Myron Fagan, a researcher into the New World Order and the many organizations that carry out its work, including the Council on Foreign Relations, published numerous articles and booklets exposing everything he learned, to warn people to take action to stop the destruction of our country. Mr. Fagan began his career as a writer, producer, and director of plays in Hollywood. During his many years there, he saw first hand what the Red Conspiracy (communism) was doing, and tried to do something to stop it. Below are excerpts from a recording Mr. Fagan made where he reveals the beginning of the one world enslavement plot launched two centuries ago by Adam Weishaupt.

“Now then, this satanic-plot was launched back in the 1760’s when it first came into existence under the name “Illuminati.” This Illuminati was organized by one Adam Weishaupt, born a Jew, who was converted to Catholicism and became a Catholic priest, and then, at the behest of the then newly-organized House of Rothschild, defected and organized the Illuminati. Naturally, the Rothschilds financed that operation and every war since then, beginning with the French Revolution, has been promoted by the Illuminati operating under various names and guises. I say under various names and guises because after the Illuminati was exposed and became notorious, Weishaupt and his co-conspirators began to operate under various other names. In the United States, immediately after World War I, they set up what they called the “Council on Foreign Relations,” commonly referred to as the CFR, and this CFR is actually the Illuminati in the United States and its hierarchy. The masterminds in control of the original Illuminati conspirators were foreigners, but to conceal that fact, most of them changed their original family names to American sounding names. For example, the true name of the Dillons, Clarence and Douglas Dillon (one Secretary of the U.S. Treasury Department), is Laposky. I’ll come back to all this later.

“There is a similar establishment of the Illuminati in England operating under the name of the “British Institute of International Affairs.” (The Royal Institute of International Affairs, actually) There are similar secret Illuminati organizations in France, Germany, and other nations operating under different names and all these organizations, including the CFR, continuously set up numerous subsidiary or front-organizations that are infiltrated into every phase of the various nations’ affairs. But at all times, the operations of these organizations were and are masterminded and controlled by the Internationalist Bankers, they in turn were and are controlled by the Rothschilds.

(One of the prime agents in this control is through the International BAR Association and it’s splinter groups such as the American BAR Association. It is important to note that there are BAR Associations in nearly every nation world wide now, pushing the United Nations always. I do have a copy of the 1947 agreement that the American BAR submitted which commits the BAR to support and promote the U.N. throughout America. )

NOTEJack Kennedy, during his term of office as the President of the United States, became a Christian. In his attempt to “repent,” he tried to inform the people of this Nation (at least twice) that the Office of the President of the United States was being manipulated by the Illuminati/CFR. At the same time, he put a stop to the “borrowing” of Federal Reserve Notes from the Federal Reserve Bank and began issuing United States Notes (which was interest-free) on the credit of the United States. It was the issuing of the United States Notes that caused Jack Kennedy to be “assassinated.”

Upon taking the Oath of Office, Lynden B. Johnson stopped the issuing of the United States Notes and went back to borrowing Federal Reserve Bank Notes (which were loaned to the people of the United States at the going rate of interest of 17%). The U.S. Notes, that were issued under John F. Kennedy, were of the 1963 series which bore a “Red” seal on the face of the “Note.”

But on that tragic, unforgettable day of infamy, December 23, 1913, the men we sent to Washington to safeguard our interests, the Representatives, Senators, and Woodrow Wilson, delivered the destiny of our nation into the hands of two aliens from Eastern Europe, Jacob Schiff and Paul Warburg. Warburg was a very recent immigrant who came here on orders from Rothschild for the express purpose of blueprinting that foul Federal Reserve Act.

“Now the vast majority of the American people think that the Federal Reserve System is an United States Government owned agency. That is positively false. All of the stock of the federal reserve banks is owned by the member banks and the heads of the member banks are all members of the hierarchy of the great Illuminati conspiracy known today as the “CFR.”

“Our CFR Illuminati-controlled federal government can grant “tax-free status” to all foundations and pro-red one-world outfits, such as the “Fund for the Republic.” But if you or a patriotic pro-organization is too outspokenly pro-American, they can terrify and intimidate you by finding a misplaced comma in your income-tax-report and by threatening you with penalties, fines, and even prison. Future historians will wonder how the American people could have been so naive and stupid as to have permitted such audacious brazen acts of treason as the “Federal Reserve Act” and the “16th Amendment.” Well, they were not naive and they were not stupid. The answer is: they trusted the men they elected to safeguard our country and our people, and they just didn’t have even an inkling about either betrayal, until after each one had been accomplished.”

On May 17, 2014, it was reported that after World War II, the CIA (preceded by the OSS) was set up as a result of the National Security Act of 1947, which was signed into law by President Truman. Partially responsible for the CIA’s creation, the Pratt House in New York (future home of the Council on Foreign Relations), was itself modelled from the British Secret Intelligence Service.  Likewise, the over-arching institutions that control and run the intelligence agencies in the West, like the Council on Foreign Relations, were modelled on the Oxford Round Table Groups and the Royal Institute for International Affairs.  Indeed, the Pratt House’s British counterpart was the Chatham House.  According to the Council on Foreign Relation’s website:

In 1944, the widow of Harold Irving Pratt, a director of Standard Oil of New Jersey and a faithful Council member since 1923, donated the family’s four-story mansion, at the southwest corner of 68th Street and Park Avenue, for the Council’s use. (In keeping with a prevailing reverse snobbery, the address and front door were on the side street, not the more showy avenue.) John D. Rockefeller, Jr., led a slate of 200 members and companies who volunteered funds to convert the gracious residence into offices, meeting rooms, and an institutional library. When the Council moved into its new quarters in April 1945, Secretary of State Edward Stettinius, a member since 1938, came to New York, “to bear witness [he said], as every Secretary of State during the past quarter of a century, to the great services and influence of this organization in spreading knowledge and understanding of the issues of United States foreign policy.”

johndullesquoteIt is important to note that Allen Dulles moved from the OSS to the CFR.  Also important is the transition of U.S. foreign policy from “isolationist” or perhaps non-interventionist, to openly imperial engine for the Anglo-American establishment:

In its substance, American foreign policy was similarly transformed in the first years following World War II. An isolationist frontier nation became a world power. A wartime ally, the Soviet Union, became an adversary; former enemies, Germany and Japan, became allies. The transformation did not occur without intellectual and organizational agonies—in the government and in the private associations like the CFR that sought to understand and explain the changes taking place in the world.

Allen Dulles returned from the wartime OSS to assume a leading role in the CFR’s business, resuming his law practice at Sullivan and Cromwell for an interim between his secret work in Switzerland and a career at the soon-to-be Central Intelligence Agency. Dulles was a Republican; working alongside him in the CFR was Alger Hiss, a newly elected member sympathetic to the left-wing of the Democratic Party, but a protege of the older Dulles brother, John Foster.”

Readers of Dr. Carroll Quigley will of course be familiar with the truth that the Western establishment often aided and built up the communist and fascist regimes, but as we shall see, other sources document this trend, too. The CFR website goes on to describe the inclusion of Soviet thinkers in 1945:

“In characteristic fashion, Council planners conceived a study group to analyze the coming world order. Notably uncharacteristic was the additional suggestion that the American members be joined by competent persons from Soviet Russia—a joint Soviet-American inquiry. In the congenial, gentlemanly atmosphere of the Harold Pratt House, ideas and visions could be shared.”

The result of the 1945-46 panel on the relationship of the U.S. and the USSR became known as the Franklin Draft.

The Western elites had no problem joining with the heads of the “godless Empire of evil” because they were the dialectical opposite side of the coin, and many of their own patrons had aided the Soviet cause (which the Soviets initially objected to).  William Schubart pressed for massive aid from the U.S. to U.S.S.R. in the form of billions to help rebuild:

“I think we can be hard-boiled and just, without doing harm,” he told the Council. “The main thing is to be sure that we are not asking for something unreasonable” of the Soviet Union. Specifically, he was pressing for endorsement of a $6 billion loan from the United States to finance Soviet imports for postwar reconstruction. “It seems reasonable to suppose that if economic and political cooperation between Russia and the United States could be developed in peace as military cooperation between the two nations has been developed in war,” Schubart said, “the world might look forward to an era of relative stability and considerable prosperity. We must take every opportunity to work with the Soviets now, when their power is still far inferior to ours, and hope that we can establish our cooperation on a firmer basis for the not so distant future when they will have completed their reconstruction and greatly increased their strength…. The policy we advocate is one of firmness coupled with moderation and patience.”

The panel at that time was basically split as to how to accept the proposals, with Allen Dulles remaining one of the prominent holdouts, showing Dulles at least did understand the threat of Sovietization and collectivization.  Member Frank Altschul openly fought it, declaring the need to oppose the Soviets, claiming that the Council was “bending over to appease them.”  What we can see here that is so crucial, is that the U.S. was already buckling to communism and collectivism as far back as the mid-1940s.  And it was the elite Western capitalists that were supporting such a move, as Quigley has noted at length in Tragedy and Hope. Consider as well that the Franklin Report emerged in May of 1946, for May 1 is the great communist holiday, the day of the founding of the Bavarian Illuminati.  The CFR site goes on to claim that this great draft was unheeded, and the ominous Cold War began (oh, such a nasty thing!) because of hardliners that opposed Marxism.  Again, let’s stop and think about this astonishing point: the article even sites Alger Hiss, as well as other members wanting rapport with the USSR in the mid 1940s!  Senator Joe McCarthy was more than right: not only was he right about hundreds of Soviet agents in the US government, the higher entities like the CFR were also half red.

This period of the 1940s is particularly worthy of attention in regard to the initial question asked: what about OSS support for Mao and Marxist guerillas?  Absolutely: the OSS helped train Mao’s guerillas during this period!

“Against the wishes of America’s French and Chinese allies, OSS “Mission DEER” had briefly aided Communist insurgent leader Ho Chi Minh in his fight against the Japanese in northern Indochina.”

The logic here being the breakdown and control of China through opium by the Brits, and then controlling China further, using that same strategy, combined with eugenics under Mao.  But that’s not all: the West was, as everyone knows, supporting Chiang Kai-Shek, in a classic case of funding both sides in the classic British strategy of controlled opposition.

The reality is that the internationalist communists and the transnationalist westerns have much in common–enough in common that Antonio Gramsci, the famed Italian communist who argued that the reds should become capitalists to destroy the West, argued that they could join.  The goal, therefore, has always been a “third way” that combined the supposed best of both worlds, and embodied in what we see in modern China, which David Rockefeller has praised.  The convergence is the longterm goal, and the aid given in the past by the West was to bring the communists and Soviets to power, just as the aid was given to the radical Muslims and terrorists. The parallels are exactly the same, in fact, between the Cold War and the War on Terror.

MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS — 

There is no “official” membership list of the Council on Foreign Relations. The CFR website has a membership roster that can be searched alphabetically. However, the list of names is taken from the Annual Report of donors to the CFR. This means someone can be a member without their name appearing on the membership roster on the website.

There is also a corporate roster of corporations that support the CFR listed on the CFR website.

There are numerous lists of some CFR members on various websites.  An interesting list on Wikipedia shows some of the history of how many CFR members have held the same position in the federal government through the years.

There are more than 20  members of Congress that are CFRs, as well as Vice President Biden. and potential 2016 presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush. As explained in this article, the CFR is dedicated to the destruction of the sovereignty of the United States. This is a definition of treason; therefore, anyone in the government that is a member of the CFR is a traitor, and should be prosecuted for treason against the United States.

If you enjoy living in a country with a tyrannical government that is actually run by foreign interests, not the United States itself, where your daily activities are watched and recorded by the government, where you can’t find a job, and if you do have a job, you will probably be replaced by a robot in 10 years, then do nothing. If you don’t like living in an oppressed, occupied country, then take action!

Source Materials —

Jim Marrs, The Trillion Dollar Conspiracy (Harper, 2011)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *