HotFreeBooks.com
The Invisible Government
by Dan Smoot
Previous Part     1  2  3  4  5     Next Part
Home - Random Browse

Nowadays, when two or more nations amalgamate their economic, political, and social systems they necessarily take the lowest common denominator of freedom rather than the highest. In fact, they must take something lower than the lowest: the union government will be more restrictive than the government of any of the nations which formed the union.

This will be true of any supra-national government that the United States might get into: the union will not extend American freedom to other nations; it will extend to all nations in the union the most restrictive controls of the most oppressive government which enters the union, and make even those controls worse than they were before the union was formed—because the American principle of federalism has been discarded by the "liberals" who manage our national affairs; and American federalism is the only political principle ever to exist in the history of the world that can make individual human freedom possible in a federation of states.

Hard core American communists know (and some admit) that any move toward American membership in any kind of supra-national government is a move toward the Soviet objective of a one-world socialist dictatorship; but all other American advocates of international union claim their schemes are intended to repeat and extend the marvelous achievement of 13 American states which, by forming a political union, created a free and powerful nation.

All United States advocates of any kind of world government point to the founding of America: 13 sovereign states, each one proud and nationalistic, all with special interests that were divergent from or in conflict with the interests of the others; yet, they managed to surrender enough sovereignty to join a federal union which gave the united strength of all, while retaining the individuality and freedom of each.

* * * * *

The 13 American states, in forming a federal union, did not take the lowest common denominator of freedom; they took the highest, and elevated that.

The American principle of federalism (indeed, the whole American constitutional system) grew out of the philosophical doctrine (or, rather, statement of faith) which Jefferson wrote into the Declaration of Independence:

"...all men are ... endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights..."

Men get their rights from God, not from government. Government, a man-made creature, has nothing except what it takes from God-created men. Government can give the people nothing that it has not first taken away from them. Hence, if man is to remain free, he must have a government which will play a very limited and negative role in his private affairs.

The United States is the only nation, ever, whose institutions and organic law were founded on this principle. The United Nations' Declaration of Human Rights; the Constitution of the Soviet Union; and the written and unwritten constitutions of every other nation in the world are all built on a political principle exactly opposite in meaning to the basic principle of Americanism. That is, the Constitution of the Soviet Union, and of every UN agency, and of all other nations, specify a large number of rights and privileges which citizens should have, if possible, and which government will grant them if government can, and if government thinks proper.

Contrast this with the American Constitution and Bill of Rights which do not contain one statement or inference that the federal government has any responsibility, or power, to grant the people rights, privileges, or benefits of any kind. The total emphasis in these American documents is on telling the federal government what it cannot do to and for the people—on ordering the federal government to stay out of the private affairs of citizens and to leave their God-given rights alone.

* * * * *

This negative, restricted role of the federal government, and this assumption that God and not government is the source of man's rights and privileges, are clearly stated in the Preamble to our Constitution. The Preamble says that this Constitution is being ordained and established, not to grant liberties to the people, but to secure the liberties which the people already had (before the government was ever formed) as blessings.

The essence of the American constitutional system, which made freedom in a federal union possible, is clearly stated in the first sentence of the first Article of our Constitution and in the last Article (the Tenth Amendment) of our Bill of Rights.

The first Article of our Constitution begins with the phrase, "All legislative Powers herein granted...." That obviously meant the federal government had no powers which were not granted to it by the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment restates the same thing with emphasis:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Clearly and emphatically, our Constitution says that the federal government cannot legally do anything which is not authorized by a specific grant of power in the Constitution.

This is the one constitutional concept that made the American governmental system different from all others; it is the one which left our people so free and unmolested by their own government that they converted the backward, American continent into the land of freedom, the most fruitful and powerful nation in history.

And this was the constitutional proviso which created the American principle of federalism. The Constitution made no grant, or even inferred a grant, of power to the federal government for meddling, to any extent, or for any purpose whatever, in the private cultural, economic, social, educational, religious, or political affairs of individual citizens—or in the legitimate governmental activities of the individual states which became members of the federal union. Hence, states could join the federal union without sacrificing the freedom of their citizens.

Modern "liberalism" which has been continuously in control of the federal government (and of most opinion-forming institutions and media throughout our society) since Franklin D. Roosevelt's first inauguration, March 4, 1933, has, by ignoring constitutional restraints, changed our Federal government with limited powers into a Central government with limitless power over the individual states and their people.

Modern "liberalism" has abandoned American constitutional government and replaced it with democratic centralism, which, in fundamental theory, is identical with the democratic centralism of the Soviet Union, and of every other major nation existing today.

It was possible to enlarge the size of the old American federal union without diminishing freedom for the people. When you enlarge the land area and population controlled by democratic centralism you must necessarily diminish freedom for the people, because the problems of centralized government increase with the size of population and area which it controls.

* * * * *

Look at what has happened to America since our federal government was converted into a centralized absolutism. The central government in Washington arrogated to itself the unconstitutional power and responsibility of regulating the relationships between private employers and their employees, enacting laws which established "collective bargaining" as "national policy," and which, to that end, gave international unions a virtual monopoly over large segments of the labor market.

It follows that a minor labor dispute between two unions on the waterfront of New York is no longer a concern only of the people and police in that neighborhood. A handful of union members who have no grievance whatever against their employers but who are in a jurisdictional struggle with another union, can shut down the greatest railroad systems in the world, throw thousands out of work, and paralyze vital transportation for business firms and millions of citizens all over the nation.

Harry Bridges on the West Coast can order a political demonstration having nothing to do with "labor" matters, and paralyze the economy of half the nation.

Imagine what it will be like if we join a world government. Then a dock strike in London will cripple, not just the British Isles but the whole world.

Now, the central government in Washington sends troops into local communities to enforce, at bayonet point, the illegal edicts of a Washington judicial oligarchy concerning the operation of local schools. If we join world government, the edict and the troops will come (depending on what nations are in the international union, of course) from India and Japan and the Congo.

* * * * *

There was a time when Americans, learning of suffering and want in a distant land, could respond to their Christian promptings and native kindliness by making voluntary contributions for relief to their fellow human beings abroad. Our central government's foreign aid programs have already taken much of that freedom away from American citizens—taxing them so heavily for what government wants to give away, that private citizens can't spend their own money the way they would like to.

What will it be like if we join a world government that embraces the real have-not nations of the earth? The impoverished subcontinent of India, because of population, would have more representatives in the international parliament than we would have. They, with the support of representatives from Latin America and Africa, could easily vote to lay a tax on "surplus" incomes for the benefit of all illiterate and hungry people everywhere; and outvoted Americans would be the only people in the world with incomes high enough to meet the international definition of "surplus."

We read with horror of Soviet slaughter in Hungary when the Soviets suppress a local rebellion against their partial world-government. What kind of horror would we feel after we join a world government and see troops from Europe and Africa and the Middle East machinegunning people on the streets of United States cities in order to suppress a rebellion of young Americans who somehow heard about the magnificent constitutional system and glorious freedom their fathers used to have and who are trying to make a public demonstration of protest against the international tyranny being imposed upon them?

A genuine world government might eliminate the armed conflict (between nations) which we now call war; but it would cause an endless series of bloody uprisings and bloody suppressions, and would cause more human misery than total war itself.

* * * * *

In 1936, the Communist International formally presented its three-stage plan for achieving world government—Stage 1: socialize the economies of all nations, particularly the Western "capitalistic democracies" (most particularly, the United States); Stage 2: bring about federal unions of various groupings of these socialized nations; Stage 3: amalgamate all of the federal unions into one world-wide union of socialist states. The following passage is from the official program of the 1936 Communist International:

"...dictatorship can be established only by a victory of socialism in different countries or groups of countries, after which the proletariat republics would unite on federal lines with those already in existence, and this system of federal unions would expand ... at length forming the World Union of Socialist Soviet Republics."

In 1939 (three years after this communist program was outlined) Clarence K. Streit (a Rhodes scholar who was foreign correspondent for The New York Times, covering League of Nations activities from 1929-1939) wrote Union Now, a book advocating a gradual approach through regional unions to final world union—an approach identical with that of the communists, except that Streit did not say his scheme was intended to achieve world dictatorship, and did not characterize the end result of his scheme as a "World Union of Socialist Soviet Republics."

* * * * *

In 1940, Clarence K. Streit (together with Percival F. Brundage, later a Director of the Budget for Eisenhower; and Melvin Ryder, publisher of the Army Times) formed Federal Union, Inc., to work for the goals outlined in Streit's book, Union Now, published the year before.

In 1941, Streit published another book: Union Now With Britain. He claims that the union he advocated would be a step toward "formation of free world government." But the arguments of his book make it very clear that in joining a union with other nations, the United States would not bring to the union old American constitutional concepts of free-enterprise and individual freedom under limited government, but would rather amalgamate with the socialistic-communistic systems that exist in the other nations which became members of the union.

The following passages are from page 192 of Streit's Union Now With Britain:

"Democrats cannot ... quarrel with Soviet Russia or any other nation because of its economic collectivism, for democracy itself introduced the idea of collective machinery into politics. It is a profound mistake to identify democracy and Union necessarily or entirely with either capitalist or socialist society, with either the method of individual or collective enterprise. There is room for both of these methods in democracy....

"Democracy not only allows mankind to choose freely between capitalism and collectivism, but it includes marxist governments, parties and press...."

When the year 1941 ended, America was in World War II; and all American advocates of world-peace-through-world-law-and-world-government jubilantly struck while the iron was hot—using the hysteria and confusion of the early days of our involvement in the great catastrophe as a means of pushing us into one or another of the schemes for union with other nations.

Clarence Streit states it this way, in his most recent book (Freedom's Frontier Atlantic Union Now, 1961):

"Japan Pearl Harbored us into the war we had sought to avoid by disunion.... Now, we Americans had the white heat of war to help leaders form the nuclear Atlantic Union."

* * * * *

On January 5, 1942 (when we had been at war less than a month), Clarence Streit's Federal Union, Inc., bought advertising space in major newspapers for a petition urging Congress to adopt a joint resolution favoring immediate union of the United States with several specified foreign nations. Such people as Harold L. Ickes (Roosevelt cabinet officer), Owen J. Roberts (Supreme Court Justice), and John Foster Dulles (later Eisenhower's Secretary of State) signed this newspaper ad petitioning Congress to drag America into world government. In fact, these notables (especially John Foster Dulles) had actually written the Joint Resolution which Federal Union wanted Congress to adopt.

The world government resolution (urged upon Congress in January, 1942) provided among other things that in the federal union of nations to be formed, the "union" government would have the right: (1) to impose a common citizenship; (2) to tax citizens directly; (3) to make and enforce all laws; (4) to coin and borrow money; (5) to have a monopoly on all armed forces; and (6) to admit new members.

The following is from a Federal Union, Inc., ad published in The Washington Evening Star, January 5, 1942, urging upon the people and Congress of America an immediate plunge into world government:

"....Resolved:

"That the President of the United States submit to Congress a program for forming a powerful union of free peoples to win the war, the peace, the future;

"That this program unite our people, on the broad lines of our Constitution, with the people of Canada, the United Kingdom, Eire, Australia, New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa, together with such other free peoples, both in the Old World and the New as may be found ready and able to unite on this federal basis....

"We gain from the fact that all the Soviet republics are already united in one government, as are also all the Chinese-speaking people, once so divided. Surely, we and they must agree that union now of the democracies wherever possible is equally to the general advantage....

"Let us begin now a world United States....

"The surest way to shorten and to win this war is also the surest way to guarantee to ourselves, and our friends and foes, that this war will end in a union of the free. The surest way to do all this is for us to start that union now."

* * * * *

World Fellowship, Inc., was also busy putting pressure on Congress in January, 1942. World Fellowship, Inc., is one of the oldest world government organizations. It was founded in 1918 as the "League of Neighbors."

In 1924, the League of Neighbors united with the Union of East and West (which had been founded in India). In 1933, this combined organization reorganized and changed its name to World Fellowship of Faiths. In late 1941, it changed its name again and incorporated—and has operated since that time as World Fellowship, Inc.

Dr. Willard Uphaus, a notorious communist-fronter, has been Executive Director of World Fellowship, Inc., since February, 1953. Here is a Joint Resolution which World Fellowship, Inc., urged Congress to adopt on or before January 30, 1942—as a birthday present to President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

"Now, therefore, be it

"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That the Congress of the United States of America does hereby solemnly declare that all peoples of the earth should now be united in a commonwealth of nations to be known as the United Nations of the World, and to that end it hereby gives to the President of the United States of America all the needed authority and powers of every kind and description, without limitations of any kind that are necessary in his sole and absolute discretion to set up and create the Federation of the World, a world peace government under the title of the 'United Nations of the World,' including its constitution and personnel and all other matters needed or appertaining thereto to the end that all nations of the world may by voluntary action become a part thereof under the same terms and conditions.

"There is hereby authorised to be appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of 100 million dollars or so much thereof as may be necessary, to be expended by the President in his sole and absolute discretion, to effectuate the purposes of this joint resolution, and in addition, the sum of 1 billion dollars for the immediate use of the United Nations of the World under its constitution as set up and created by the President of the United States of America as provided in this joint resolution...."

Congress rejected the world-government resolutions urged upon it in 1942 by Federal Union, Inc., and by World Fellowship, Inc.

* * * * *

But the formation of the United Nations in 1945 was a tremendous step in the direction these two organizations were travelling. The "world peace" aspects of the United Nations were emphasized to enlist support of the American public. Few Americans noticed that the UN Charter really creates a worldwide social, cultural, economic, educational, and political alliance—and commits each member nation to a program of total socialism for itself and to the support of total socialism for all other nations.

The United Nations is, to be sure, a weaker alliance than world government advocates want; but the UN was the starting point and framework for world government.

The massive UN propaganda during the first few years after the formation of the UN (1945) was so effective in brainwashing the American people, that the United World Federalists, beginning with the State Assembly of California, managed to get 27 state legislatures to pass resolutions demanding that Congress call a Constitutional Convention for the purpose of amending our Constitution in order to "expedite and insure" participation of the United States in a world government. When the American people found out what was going on, all of these "resolutions" were repealed—most of them before the end of 1950.

But 1949 was a great year for American world government advocates.

* * * * *

On April 4, 1949, Dean Acheson's "brainchild," the North Atlantic Treaty, was ratified by the United States. President Truman signed the proclamation putting NATO in force on August 24, 1949. Most Americans were happy with this organization. It was supposedly a military alliance to protect the free world against communism. But few Americans bothered to read the brief, 14-article treaty. If they had, Article 2 would have sounded rather strange and out of place in a military alliance. Here is Article 2 of the NATO Treaty:

"The parties will contribute toward the future development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them."

Here in this "military" treaty, which re-affirms the participants' "faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations," is the legal basis for a union, an Atlantic Union, a supra-national government, all under the United Nations.

* * * * *

Immediately upon the formation of NATO, Clarence K. Streit created (in 1949) the Atlantic Union Committee, Inc. Strait's old Federal Union was permitted to become virtually defunct (although it technically still exists, as publisher of Streit's books, and so on). Streit got federal tax exemption for the Atlantic Union Committee by writing into its charter a proviso that the organisation would not "attempt to influence legislation by propaganda or otherwise."

Yet, the charter of AUC states its purposes as follows:

"To promote support for congressional action requesting the President of the United States to invite the other democracies which sponsored the North Atlantic Treaty to name delegates, representing their principal political parties, to meet with delegates of the United States in a federal convention to explore how far their peoples, and the peoples of such other democracies as the convention may invite to send delegates, can apply among them, within the framework of the United Nations, the principles of free federal union."

An Atlantic Union Committee Resolution, providing for the calling of an international convention to "explore" steps toward a limited world government, was actually introduced in the Congress in 1949—with the support of a frightful number of "liberals" then in the Congress.

The Resolution did not come to a vote in the 81st Congress (1949-1950). Estes Kefauver (Democrat, Tennessee) gravitated to the leadership in pushing for the Resolution in subsequent Congresses; and he had the support of the top leadership of both parties, Republican and Democrat, north and south—including people like Richard Nixon, William Fulbright, Lister Hill, Hubert Humphrey, Mike Mansfield, Kenneth Keating, Jacob Javits, Christian Herter, and so on.

From 1949 to 1959, the Atlantic Union Resolution was introduced in each Congress—except the one Republican-controlled Congress (83rd—1953).

* * * * *

In 1959, Atlantic Union advocates, having got nowhere in ten years of trying to push their Resolution through Congress, changed tactics. In 1959, Streit's Atlantic Union Committee published a pamphlet entitled, Our One Best Hope—For Us—For The United Nations—For All Mankind, recommending an "action" program to "strengthen the UN." This "action" program asks the U.S. Congress to pass a Resolution calling for an international convention which would accomplish certain "fundamental objectives," to wit:

"That only reasonably experienced democracies be asked to participate; and that the number asked to participate should be small enough to enhance the chance for early agreement, yet large enough to create, if united, a preponderance of power on the side of freedom.

"That the delegates be officially appointed but that they be uninstructed by their governments so that they shall be free to act in accordance with their own individual consciences.

"That, whatever the phraseology, it should not be such as to preclude any proposal which, in the wisdom of the convention, is the most practical step.

"That the findings of the delegates could be only recommendations, later to be accepted or rejected by their legislatures and their fellow citizens."

* * * * *

The NATO Citizens Commission Law of 1960 fully carries out the purposes and intent of the new Atlantic Union strategy fabricated in 1959 to replace the old Resolution which had failed for ten years.

The roll-call vote on this law (published in the February 27, 1961, issue of The Dan Smoot Report) shows what a powerful array of United States Congressmen and Senators are for this step toward world government.

The debates in House and Senate (Senate: Congressional Record, June 15, 1960, pp. 11724 ff; House: Congressional Record, August 24, 1960, pp. 16261 ff) show something even more significant.

While denying that the NATO Citizens Commission Law had any relation to the old Atlantic Union Resolution which Congress had refused for ten years to consider, "liberals" in both Senate and House used language right out of the Atlantic Union Committee pamphlet of 1959 (Our Best Hope ...) to "prove" that this NATO Citizens Commission proposal was not dangerous: They argued, for example, that Commission members would be free to act in accordance with their own individual consciences; that the meetings of the Commission would be purely exploratory, and that Commission findings would be "only recommendations," not binding on the U.S. government.

Congressional "liberals" supporting the NATO Citizens Commission also tried to establish the respectability of the Commission by arguing that it was merely being created to explore means of implementing Article 2 of the NATO Treaty. Are these "liberal" congressmen and senators so ignorant that they do not know the whole Atlantic Union movement is built under the canopy of "implementing Article 2 of this NATO Treaty?" Or, are they too stupid to understand this? Or, are they so dishonest that they distort the facts, thinking that the public is too confused or ignorant to discover the truth?

Although the liberals in Congress loudly denied that the NATO Citizens Commission Law of 1960 had anything to do with Atlantic Union, Clarence Streit knew better—or was more honest. As soon as the law was passed, Streit began a hasty revision of his old Union Now. Early in 1961, Harper & Brothers published the revision, under the title Freedom's Frontier Atlantic Union Now.

In this new book, Streit expresses jubilation about the NATO Citizens Commission Law; and, on the second page of the first chapter, he says:

"One change in the picture, which has seemed too slight or too recent to be noted yet by the general public, seems to me so significant as to give in itself reason enough for new faith in freedom's future, and for this new effort to advance it. On September 7, 1960, President Eisenhower signed an act of Congress authorizing a United States Citizens Commission on NATO to organize and participate in a Convention of Citizens of North Atlantic Democracies with a view to exploring fully and recommending concretely how to unite their peoples better."

The Atlantic Union News (published by the Atlantic Union Committee, Inc.) in the September, 1960, issue presents an exultant article under the headline "AUC Victorious: Resolution Signed by President Becomes Public Law 86-719."

The article says:

"Members of the Atlantic Union Committee could certainly be forgiven if by now they had decided that the Resolution for an Atlantic Exploratory Convention would never pass both Houses of Congress. However, it has just done so. It was signed into law by the President September 7, 1960. The incredible size of this victory is hard, even for us in Washington, to comprehend...."

Who actually runs Clarence Streit's Atlantic Union Committee which finally succeeded in ordering the Congress and the President of the United States to take this sinister step toward world government? The Council on Foreign Relations! The three top officials of the Atlantic Union Committee are members of the CFR: Elmo Roper, President; William L. Clayton, Vice President; and Lithgow Osborne, Secretary.

As of December, 1960, there were 871 members of the Atlantic Union Committee. Of these, 107 were also members of the Council on Foreign Relations. The December, 1960, membership list of the AUC is in Appendix II of this volume. Each Council on Foreign Relations member is designated on that list with CFR in parentheses after his name.

* * * * *

The NATO Citizens Commission Law of 1960 provided that the Speaker of the House and the Vice President should select 20 persons to serve on the Commission. In March, 1961, Sam Rayburn and Lyndon Johnson appointed the following persons as members of the Commission:

Donald G. Agger; Will L. Clayton; Charles William Engelhard, Jr.; George J. Feldman; Morris Forgash; Christian A. Herter; Dr. Francis S. Hutchins; Eric Johnston; William F. Knowland; Hugh Moore; Ralph D. Pittman, Ben Regan; David Rockefeller; Elmo B. Roper (Jr.); Mrs. Edith S. Sampson; Adolph W. Schmidt; Oliver C. Schroeder; Burr S. Swezey, Sr.; Alex Warden; and Douglas Wynn.

Of the 20 members of the NATO Citizens Commission, 7 are members of the Council on Foreign Relations: Clayton, Herter, Johnston, Moore, Rockefeller, Roper, Schmidt. Roper is President and Clayton is Vice President of the Atlantic Union Committee. The others are generally second-level affiliates of the CFR.

* * * * *

The United World Federalists does not have as much power and influence as Clarence Streit's Atlantic Union, but is clearly the second most influential organization working for world government.

The specific objective of the United World Federalists is rapid transformation (through expansion of the jurisdiction of the World Court, establishment of an international "police force," and so on) of the United Nations into an all-powerful world government.

The aim of the UWF organization, as expressed in its own literature (the most revealing piece of which is a pamphlet called Beliefs, Purposes and Policies) is:

"To create a world federal government with authority to enact, interpret, and enforce world law adequate to maintain peace."

The world federal government would be,

"based upon the following principles and include the following powers....

"Membership open to all nations without the right of secession.... World law should be enforceable directly upon individuals.... The world government should have direct taxing power independent of national taxation."

The UWF scheme provides for a world police force and the prohibition of "possession by any nation of armaments and forces beyond an approved level required for internal policing."

The UWF proposes to work toward its world government scheme,

"By making use of the amendment process of the United Nations to transform it into such a world federal government;

"By participating in world constituent assemblies, whether of private individuals, parliamentary or other groups seeking to produce draft constitutions for consideration and possible adoption by the United Nations or by national governments...."

Norman Cousins and James P. Warburg (both prominent Council on Foreign Relations members) formed the United World Federalists in February, 1947, at Ashville, North Carolina, by amalgamating three small organizations (World Federalists, Student Federalists, and Americans United For World Government).

Cousins is still honorary president of UWF. Walter Reuther (a "second-level" affiliate of the CFR), Cousins, and Warburg actually run the UWF at the top. Other Council on Foreign Relations members who are officials in the UWF include Harry A. Bullis, Arthur H. Bunker, Cass Canfield, Mark F. Ethridge, Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., Harold K. Guinzburg, Isador Lubin, Cord Meyer, Jr., Lewis Mumford, Harry Scherman, Raymond Gram Swing, Paul C. Smith, Walter Wanger, James D. Zellerbach.

* * * * *

The Institute for International Order, 11 West 42nd Street, New York 36, New York, is another organization working for world government. It was founded on November 17, 1948, at Washington, D.C., as the Association for Education in World Government. On May 17, 1952, it changed its name to Institute for International Government. On May 7, 1954, it changed names again, to the present Institute for International Order.

The purpose of this organization has remained constant, through all the name changing, since it was originally founded in 1948: to strengthen the United Nations into a genuine world government. And it is a part of the interlocking apparatus which constitutes our invisible government.

The Institute for International Order gets 75% of its income from foundations which members of the Council on Foreign Relations control; and the following CFR members are officers of the Institute: Earl D. Osborn (President), Henry B. Cabot (Vice President), Edward W. Barrett, Paul G. Hoffman, and Irving Salomon.

In 1948, the State Department created the U.S. Committee for the UN (mentioned in Chapter VIII, in connection with the Advertising Council) as a semi-official organization to propagandize for the UN in the United States, with emphasis on promoting "UN Day" each year.

The Council on Foreign Relations dominates the U.S. Committee for the UN. Such persons as Stanley C. Allyn, Ralph Bunche, Gardner Cowles, H. J. Heinz, II, Eric Johnston, Milton Katz, Stanley Marcus, Hugh Moore, John Nason, Earl D. Osborn, Jack I. Straus, and Walter Wheeler, Jr.—all Council on Foreign Relations members—are members of the U.S. Committee for the United Nations.

Walter Wheeler, Jr., (last name in the list above) is President of Pitney-Bowes, maker of postage meter machines. In 1961, Mr. Wheeler tried to stop all Pitney-Bowes customers from using, on their meter machines, the American patriotic slogan, "This is a republic, not a democracy: let's keep it that way." Mr. Wheeler said this slogan was controversial. But Mr. Wheeler supported a campaign to get the slogan of international socialism, UN We Believe, used on Pitney-Bowes postage meter machines—probably the most controversial slogan ever to appear in American advertising, as we shall see presently.

The American Association for the United Nations—AAUN—is another tax-exempt, "semi-private" organization set up (not directly by the CFR, but by the State Department which the Council runs) as a propaganda agency for the UN. It serves as an outlet for UN pamphlets and, with chapters in most key cities throughout the United States, as an organizer of meetings, lecture-series, and other programs which propagandize about the ineffable goodness and greatness of the United Nations as the maker and keeper of world peace.

The Council on Foreign Relations dominates the AAUN. Some of the leading CFR members who run the AAUN are: Ralph J. Bunche, Cass Canfield, Benjamin V. Cohen, John Cowles, Clark M. Eichelberger, Ernest A. Gross, Paul G. Hoffman, Palmer Hoyt, Herbert Lehman, Oscar de Lima, Irving Salomon, James T. Shotwell, Sumner Welles, Quincy Wright.

* * * * *

In 1958, the United States Committee for the UN created an Industry Participation Division for the specific purpose of getting the UN emblem and UN We Believe slogan displayed on the commercial vehicles, stationery, business forms, office buildings, flag poles, and advertising layouts of American business firms. The first major firm to plunge conspicuously into this pro-UN propaganda drive was United Air Lines.

W. A. Patterson, President of United, is an official of the Committee For Economic Development, a major Council on Foreign Relations propaganda affiliate, and has served on the Business-Education Committee of the CED. Mr. Patterson had the UN We Believe emblem painted in a conspicuous place on every plane in the United Air Lines fleet. There was a massive protest from Americans who know that the UN is part of the great scheme to destroy America as a free and independent republic. Mr. Patterson had the UN emblems removed from his planes.

* * * * *

In 1961, the American Association for the United Nations and the U. S. Committee for the UN (both enjoying federal tax exemption, as "educational" in the "public interest") created another tax-exempt organization to plaster the UN emblem all over the American landscape.

The new organization is called UN We Believe. Here is an article from the May-June, 1961, issue of Weldwood News, a house organ of United States Plywood Corporation (New York 36, New York):

"A. W. (Al) Teichmeier, USP director of merchandising, is the Company's closest physical link to the United Nations—he's President of UN We Believe.

"UN We Believe, under joint auspices of the American Association for the UN and the U. S. Committee for the UN, is a non-profit, year-round program geared to convince industry, organizations and individuals how important public support can mean in preserving world peace.

"USP uses the seal ... (UN emblem and UN We Believe slogan) on its postage meters for all New York mailings. Among some other active companies in the program are CIT, General Telephone, Texaco, American Sugar Refining, P. Lorillard Co., and KLM Dutch Airlines."

Plywood companies (small ones, producing hardwood plywood, if not big ones like USP) have been grievously hurt by the trade and foreign-aid policies which the UN, international-socialist crowd is responsible for.

Lenin is said to have remarked that when it comes time for communists to hang all capitalists, the capitalists will bid against each other for contracts to sell the rope.

The article from Weldwood News, quoted above, was quoted in the July 17, 1961, issue of The Dan Smoot Report. The companies mentioned received some mail, criticizing them for supporting UN We Believe. The Texaco Company denied that it had ever been active in UN We Believe and said that the editor of Weldwood News had apologized for the error in publishing the reference to Texaco and had expressed regret for "the embarrassment caused" Texaco.

While denying support for UN We Believe, however, Mr. Augustus C. Long, Chairman of the Board of Texaco (and a member of the Business Advisory Council) gave unqualified endorsement of the Council on Foreign Relations. In a letter dated August 17, 1961, Mr. Long said:

"The Council on Foreign Relations is one of the most effective organizations in this country devoted to spreading information on international problems. The officers and directors of the Council are men of reputation and stature. We believe that the Council through its study groups makes an outstanding contribution to public information concerning foreign policy issues."



Chapter 8

FOREIGN AID



One day in the spring of 1961, a New York lawyer received a long distance telephone call. Concerning this call, the New York Times reported:

"'This is President Kennedy,' the telephone voice said.

"'The hell you say,' retorted the lawyer. 'I guess that makes me the Prime Minister of England, but what can I do for you?'

"'Nobody's pulling your leg,' the telephone voice said. 'This is President Kennedy all right. I want to talk to you about coming down here to Washington to help me with this long-term foreign aid legislation.'"

One week later, the New York lawyer took an apartment in Washington and, as a member of President Kennedy's "Task Force" on foreign aid, started writing the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. The lawyer is Theodore Tannenwald, Jr., a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, who wrote many of the foreign aid bills which President Harry Truman presented to Congress and who, during the first Eisenhower term, was assistant director of the Mutual Security Program.

After Mr. Tannenwald and his task force had finished writing the 1961 foreign aid bill, President Kennedy appointed Tannenwald coordinator in charge of "presenting" the bill to committees of the House and Senate. Three cabinet officers and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff took their orders from Mr. Tannenwald, who was, according to the New York Times, "the Administration's composer, orchestrator and conductor of the most important legislative symphony of the Congressional session."

With admiration, the Times said:

"Mr. Tannenwald has been a kind of special White House ambassador to Capitol Hill. While the legislative committees struggled with the controversial proposal to by-pass the appropriating process and give the President authority to borrow $8,800,000,000 (8 billion, 800 million) for development lending in the next five years, he was the man in the ante-room empowered to answer questions in the name of the President."

* * * * *

In July, 1961, President Kennedy completed Mr. Tannenwald's foreign aid "orchestra." On July 10, in ceremonies at the White House, the President formally announced creation of the newest foreign-aid propaganda organization, the Citizens Committee for International Development, with Warren Lee Pierson as chairman. Here is the membership of the Citizens Committee for International Development:

Eugenie Anderson (member of the Atlantic Union Committee); William Benton (Chairman of the Board of Encyclopaedia Britannica; member of the Atlantic Union Committee); Everett N. Case (President of Colgate University); O. Roy Chalk (President of the District of Columbia Transit Company); Malcolm S. Forbes (Editor and Publisher of Forbes Magazine); Eleanor Clark French; Albert M. Greenfield (Honorary Chairman of the Board of Bankers Security Corporation, Philadelphia); General Alfred M. Gruenther (President of the American National Red Cross; member of the Atlantic Union Committee); Murray D. Lincoln (Chairman of Nationwide Insurance Company); Sol M. Linowitz (Chairman of Zerox Corporation); George Meany (President of AFL-CIO); William S. Paley (Chairman of the Board, Columbia Broadcasting System); Warren Lee Pierson (Chairman of the Board, Trans-World Airways); Ross Pritchard (Professor of Political Science, Southwestern University, Memphis); Thomas S. Nichols (Chairman of the Board of Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation; member of the Atlantic Union Committee); Mrs. Mary G. Roebling (President Of Trenton Trust Company); David Sarnoff (Chairman of Radio Corporation of America); Walter Sterling Surrey (legal consultant, Economic Cooperation Administration); Thomas J. Watson, Jr., (President of International Business Machines Corporation); Walter H. Wheeler, Jr., (President of Pitney-Bowes); James D. Zellerbach (President and Director of Crown-Zellerbach Corporation; Chairman of Fibreboard Products, Inc.; member of the Atlantic Union Committee and United World Federalists); Ezra Zilkha (head of Zilkha & Sons).

Of these 22 people, 12 (including the Chairman) are members of the Council on Foreign Relations: Benton, Case, Gruenther, Paley, Pierson, Pritchard, Nichols, Sarnoff, Surrey, Watson, Wheeler, and Zellerbach.

* * * * *

Heads of the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations attended the White House luncheon when the Committee was formed. Vice President Johnson, Secretary of State Dean Rusk, and Attorney General Robert Kennedy were also present. The President urged each and all to get foundations, business firms, civic organizations, and the people generally, to put pressure on Congress in support of the 1961 foreign aid bill.

Within a week after the July 10, White House luncheon meeting (which launched the CFR's foreign aid committee), the President and his high-level aides were talking about a grave crisis in Berlin and about foreign aid as the essential means of "meeting" that crisis.

On July 25, when congressional debates over the foreign aid bill were in a critical stage, President Kennedy spoke to the nation on radio and television, solemnly warning the people that the Berlin situation was dangerous.

Immediate, additional support for the foreign aid bill came from the country's liberal and leftwing forces, who united in a passionate plea—urging the American people to support the President "in this grave hour."

* * * * *

On August 27, an Associated Press release announced that House Leader John W. McCormack (Democrat, Massachusetts), was attempting to enlist the cooperation of 2,400 city mayors in support of a long-range foreign aid bill to meet the President's demands.

McCormack sent the city officials a statement of his views with a cover letter suggesting that the matter be brought to "the attention of citizens of your community through publication in your local newspaper," and, further, urging their "personal endorsement of this bipartisan program through the medium of your local press...."

State Department officials scheduled speaking tours throughout the land, and CFR affiliated organizations (like the Councils on World Affairs) started the build-up to provide audiences—all in the interest of "briefing" the American people on the necessity and beauties of foreign aid.

Anyone with sense had to wonder how the giving of American tax money to communist governments in Europe and to socialist governments all over the earth could help us resist communism in Berlin. But with the top leaders in our society (from the President downward to officials in the National Council of Churches) telling us that the survival of our nation depended on the President's getting all the foreign aid "authorization" he wanted—most Americans remained silent, feeling that such consequential and complicated matters should be left in the hands of our chosen leaders.

By the end of August, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 had been passed by both houses of Congress; and the Berlin crisis moved from front page lead articles in the nation's newspapers to less important columns.

Thus, in 1961, as always, the foreign aid bill was a special project of our invisible government, the Council on Foreign Relations. And, in 1961, as always, the great, tax-supported propaganda machine used a fear psychology to bludgeon the people into silence and the Congress into obedience.

President Kennedy signed the Act as Public Law 87-195 on September 4, 1961.

* * * * *

Public Law 87-195 authorized $10,253,500,000 (10 billion, 253 million, 500 thousand) in foreign aid: $3,066,500,000 appropriated for the 1962 fiscal year, and $7,187,000,000 Treasury borrowing authorized for the next five years. The law does require the President to obtain annual appropriations for the Treasury borrowing, but permits him to make commitments to lend the money to foreign countries, before he obtains appropriations from Congress.

It was widely reported in the press that Congress had denied the President the long-term borrowing authority he had requested; but the President himself was satisfied. He knew that by promising loans to foreign governments (that is, "committing" the funds in advance of congressional appropriation) he would thus force Congress (in the interest of showing "national unity" and of not "repudiating" our President) to appropriate whatever he promised.

On August 29, the President said:

"The compromise ... is wholly satisfactory. It gives the United States Government authority to make commitments for long-term development programs with reasonable assurance that these commitments will be met."

* * * * *

Former Vice President Richard M. Nixon (a member of the CFR) was happy about the 1961 foreign aid bill. On August 29, Nixon, on the ABC radio network, said that he favored such "long-range foreign aid planning, financed through multi-year authorizations and annual appropriations."

Nelson A. Rockefeller, Republican Governor of New York, announced that he too favored "long-range foreign aid planning, financed through multi-year authorizations and annual appropriations"—exactly like Nixon.

Former President Eisenhower was also happy. He, too, said he favored this sort of thing.

Senator J. William Fulbright (Democrat, Arkansas) was almost jubilant: he said Congress for the next five years would be under "strong obligation" to put up the money for whatever the President promises to foreign governments.

All in all, it is improbable that Congress ever passed another bill more destructive of American constitutional principles; more harmful to our nation politically, economically, morally, and militarily; and more helpful to communism-socialism all over the earth—than the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, which was, from beginning to end, a product of the Council on Foreign Relations.

* * * * *

Our foreign aid does grievous harm to the American people by burdening them with excessive taxation, thus making it difficult for them to expand their own economy. This gives government pretext for intervening with more taxation and controls for domestic subsidies.

Furthermore, the money that government takes away from us for foreign aid is used to subsidize our political enemies and economic competitors abroad. Note, for example, the large quantities of agricultural goods which we give every year to communist satellite nations, thus enabling communist governments to control the hungry people of those nations. Note that while we are giving away our agricultural surpluses to communist and socialist nations, we, under the 1961 foreign aid bill (as under previous ones), are subsidizing agricultural production in the underdeveloped countries.

The 1961 foreign aid bill prohibited direct aid to Cuba, but authorized contributions to United Nations agencies, which were giving aid to Cuba.

At a time when the American economy was suffering from the flight of American industry to foreign lands, the 1961 foreign aid bill offered subsidies and investment guarantees to American firms moving abroad.

Our foreign aid enriches and strengthens political leaders and ruling oligarchies (which are often corrupt) in underdeveloped lands; and it does infinite harm to the people of those lands, when it inflates their economy and foists upon them an artificially-produced industrialism which they are not prepared to sustain or even understand.

* * * * *

The basic argument for foreign aid is that by helping the underdeveloped nations develop, we will keep them from falling under the dictatorship of communism. The argument is false and unsound, historically, politically, economically, and morally.

The communists have never subjugated a nation by winning the loyalties of the oppressed and downtrodden. The communists first win the support of liberal-intellectuals, and then use them to subvert and pervert all established mores and ideals and social and political arrangements.

Our foreign aid does not finance freedom in foreign lands; it finances socialism; and a world socialist system is what communists are trying to establish. As early as 1921, Joseph Stalin said that the advanced western nations must give economic aid to other nations in order to socialize their economies and prepare them for integration in the communist's world socialist system.

Socializing the economies of all nations so that all can be merged into a one-world system was the objective of Colonel Edward M. House, who founded the Council on Foreign Relations, and has been the objective of the Council, and of all its associated organizations, from the beginning.



Chapter 9

MORE OF THE INTERLOCK



It is impossible in this volume to discuss all organizations interlocked with the Council on Foreign Relations. In previous chapters, I have discussed some of the most powerful agencies in the interlock. In this chapter, I present brief discussions of a few organizations which make significant contributions to the over-all program of the Council.

INSTITUTE FOR AMERICAN STRATEGY

There are some men in the Council on Foreign Relations who condemn the consequences of the CFR's policies—but who never mention the CFR as responsible for those policies, and who never really suggest any change in the policies.

Frank R. Barnett is such a man. Mr. Barnett, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, is research director for the Richardson Foundation and also program director for the Institute for American Strategy, which is largely financed by the Richardson Foundation. The Institute for American Strategy holds two-day regional "Strategy Seminars" in cities throughout the United States. Participants in the seminars are carefully selected civic and community leaders. The announced official purpose of the seminars is:

"...to inform influential private American citizens of the danger which confronts the United States in the realm of world politics. They have been conceived as a means for arousing an informed and articulate patriotism which can provide the basis for the sustained and intensive effort which alone can counter the skillful propaganda and ruthless conquest so successfully practiced by the Soviet Union and her allies and satellites."

Mr. Barnett is generally one of the featured speakers at these seminars. He speaks effectively, arousing his audience to an awareness of the Soviets as an ugly menace to freedom and decency in the world. He makes his audience squirm with anxiety about how America is losing the cold war on all fronts, and makes them burn with desire to reverse this trend. But when it comes to suggesting what can be done about the terrible situation, Mr. Barnett seems only to recommend that more and more people listen to more and more speakers like him in order to become angrier at the Soviets and more disturbed about American losses—so that we can continue the same policies we have, but do a better job with them.

Mr. Barnett never criticizes the basic internationalist policy of entwining the affairs of America with those of other nations, because Mr. Barnett, like all other internationalists, takes it for granted that America can no longer defend herself, without "allies," whom we must buy with foreign aid. He does imply that our present network of permanent, entangling alliances is not working well; but he never hints that we should abandon this disastrous policy and return to the traditional American policy of benign neutrality and no-permanent-involvement, which offers the only possible hope for our peace and security. Rather, Mr. Barnett would just like us to conduct our internationalist policy in such a way as to avoid the disaster which our internationalist policy is building for us.

* * * * *

Mr. Barnett's recommendations on how to fight communism on the domestic front also trail off, generally, into contradictions and confusion. For example, in his speech to the "Strategy Seminar" arranged by the Institute for American Strategy and sponsored by the Fulton County Medical Society in Atlanta, Georgia, June, 1961, Mr. Barnett urged all citizens to inform themselves about the communist threat and become educated on its aims so that they will be capable of combatting communist propaganda. But, Mr. Barnett said, citizens are "silly" who concern themselves with trying to find communists and fellow-travelers in the PTA!

In a speech to reserve officers at the War College in July, 1961, Mr. Barnett denounced "crackpots" who hunt "pinkos" in local colleges. He said the theory that internal subversion is the chief danger to the United States is fallacious—and is harmful, because it has great popular appeal. Belief in this theory, Mr. Barnett said, makes people mistakenly feel that they "don't have to think about ... strengthening NATO, or improving foreign aid management, or volunteering for the Peace Corps, or anything else that might require sacrifice."

Mr. Barnett, who speaks persuasively as an expert on fighting communism, apparently does not know that the real work of the communist conspiracy is not performed by the shabby people who staff the official apparatus of the communist party, but is done by well-intentioned people (in the PTA and similar organizations) who have been brainwashed with communist ideas. Communists (whom Mr. Barnett hates and fears) did not do the tremendous job of causing the United States to abandon her traditional policies of freedom and independence for the internationalist policies which are dragging us into one-world socialism. The most distinguished and respected Americans of our time, in the Council on Foreign Relations (of which Mr. Barnett is a member) did this job.

It is interesting to note that the principal book offered for sale and recommended for reading at Mr. Barnett's, "Strategy Seminars" is American Strategy For The Nuclear Age. The first chapter in the book, entitled "Basic Aims of United States Foreign Policy," is a reprint of a Council on Foreign Relations report, compiled by a CFR meeting in 1959, attended by such well-known internationalist "liberals" as Frank Altschul, Hamilton Fish Armstrong, Adolf A. Berle, Jr., Robert Blum, Robert R. Bowie, John Cowles, Arthur H. Dean, Thomas K. Finletter, William C. Foster, W. Averell Harriman, Philip C. Jessup, Joseph E. Johnson, Henry R. Luce, I. I. Rabi, Herman B. Wells, Henry M. Wriston.

COMMISSION ON NATIONAL GOALS

On December 6, 1960, President Eisenhower presented, to President-elect Kennedy, a report by the President's Commission on National Goals, a group of "distinguished" Americans whom President Eisenhower had appointed 11 months before to find out what America's national purpose should be.

The national purpose of this nation should be exactly what it was during the first 125 years of our national life: to stand as proof that free men can govern themselves; to blaze a trail toward freedom, a trail which all people, if they wish, can follow or guide themselves by, without any meddling from us.

Hydrogen bombs and airplanes and intercontinental ballistic missiles do not change basic principles. The principles on which our nation was founded are eternal, as valid now as in the 18th century.

Indeed, modern developments in science should make us cling to those principles. If foreign enemies can now destroy our nation by pressing a button, it seems obvious that our total defense effort should be devoted to protecting our nation against such an attack: it is suicidal for us to waste any of our defense effort on "economic improvement" and military assistance for other nations.

All of this being obvious, it is also obvious that the President's Commission on National Goals was not really trying to discover our "national purpose." "National Purpose" was the label for a propaganda effort intended to help perpetuate governmental policies, which are dragging America into international socialism, regardless of who succeeded Eisenhower as President.

The Report is actually a rehash of major provisions in the 1960 Democrat and Republican party platforms. More than that, it is, in several fundamental and specific ways, identical with the 1960 published program of the communist party. (For a full discussion of the President's Commission on National Goals, see The Dan Smoot Report, "Our National Purpose," December 12, 1960.)

Who were the "distinguished" Americans whom Eisenhower appointed to draw this blueprint of America's National Purpose? They were:

Erwin D. Canham, Editor-in-Chief of the Christian Science Monitor; James B. Conant, former President of Harvard; Colgate W. Darden, Jr., former President of the University of Virginia and former Governor of Virginia; Crawford H. Greenewalt, President of E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc.; General Alfred M. Gruenther, President of the American Red Cross; Learned Hand, retired judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals; Clark Kerr, President of the University of California; James R. Killian, Jr., Chairman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; George Meany, President of the AFL-CIO; Frank Pace, Jr., former member of Truman's cabinet; Henry M. Wriston, President of American Assembly and President Emeritus of Brown University.

Of the 11, 7 are members of the Council on Foreign Relations—Canham, Conant, Gruenther, Hand, Killian, Pace, Wriston. All of the others are lower-level affiliates of the CFR.

NATIONAL PLANNING ASSOCIATION

The National Planning Association was established in 1934 "to bring together leaders from agriculture, business, labor, and the professions to pool their experience and foresight in developing workable plans for the nation's future...."

The quotation is from an NPA booklet, which also says:

"Every year since the NPA was organized in 1934, its reports have strongly influenced our national economy, U.S. economic policy, and business decisions."

Here are members of the Council on Foreign Relations listed as officials of the National Planning Association: Frank Altschul, Laird Bell, Courtney C. Brown, Eric Johnston, Donald R. Murphy, Elmo Roper, Beardsley Ruml, Hans Christian Sonne, Lauren Soth, Wayne Chatfield Taylor, John Hay Whitney.

The following officials of National Planning Association are generally second-level affiliates of the CFR—or are, at any rate, worth noting: Arnold Zander, International President of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; Solomon Barkin, Director of Research for the Textile Workers Union of America; L. S. Buckmaster, General President, United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers of America; James B. Carey, Secretary-Treasurer of CIO; Albert J. Hayes, International President of International Association of Machinists; and Walter P. Reuther.

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

In 1920, the American Civil Liberties Union was founded by Felix Frankfurter, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, William Z. Foster, then head of the U.S. Communist Party; Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, a top communist party official; Dr. Harry F. Ward, of Union Theological Seminary, a notorious communist-fronter; and Roger Baldwin.

Patrick M. Malin, a member of the CFR, has been director of the American Civil Liberties Union since 1952. Other CFR members who are known to be officials in the American Civil Liberties Union are: William Butler, Richard S. Childs, Norman Cousins, Palmer Hoyt, Jr., J. Robert Oppenheimer, Elmo Roper, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF CHRISTIANS AND JEWS

The late Charles Evans Hughes (a member of the CFR) and the late S. Parkes Cadman (former President of the Federal—now National—Council of Churches) founded the National Conference of Christians and Jews in 1928.

In June, 1950 (at the suggestion of Paul Hoffman) the National Conference of Christians and Jews founded World Brotherhood at UNESCO House in Paris, France. The officers of World Brotherhood were: Konrad Adenauer, William Benton, Arthur H. Compton, Paul Henri-Spaak, Paul G. Hoffman, Herbert H. Lehman, John J. McCloy, George Meany, Madame Pandit, Paul Reynaud, Eleanor Roosevelt, Adlai Stevenson.

* * * * *

In August, 1958, World Brotherhood held a seminar in Bern, Switzerland. All of the officers listed above attended and prepared "working papers." Here is a summary of conclusions reached at this World Brotherhood meeting, as condensed from an article by Arthur Krock, in The New York Times, November 21, 1958:

We must recognize that the communist countries are here to stay and cannot be wished away by propaganda. All is not bad in communist countries. Western nations could learn from communist experiments. We should study ways to make changes in both systems—communist and western—in order to bring them nearer together. We should try to eliminate the stereo-type attitudes about, and suspicion of, communism. We must assume that the communist side is not worse than, but merely different from, our side.

In May, 1960, World Brotherhood held a conference on "World Tensions" at Chicago University. Lester B. Pearson (socialist-internationalist from Canada) presided at the conference; and the following members of the Council on Foreign Relations served as officials: William Benton, Ralph Bunche, Marquis Childs, Harlan Cleveland, Norman Cousins, Ernest A. Gross, Paul G. Hoffman, and Adlai Stevenson.

The National Conference of Christians and Jews-World Brotherhood 1960 meeting on "World Tensions," at Chicago University, concluded that the communists are interested in more trade but not interested in political subversion, and recommended:

(1) a three-billion-dollar-a-year increase in U. S. foreign aid to "poor" countries; (2) repeal of the Connally Reservation; (3) closer relations between the U. S. and communist countries.

Adlai Stevenson told the group that Khrushchev is merely a "tough and realistic politician and polemicist," with whom it is possible to "conduct the dialogue of reason."

* * * * *

In 1961, World Brotherhood, Inc., changed its name to Conference On World Tensions.

AMERICAN ASSEMBLY

In 1950, when President of Columbia University, General Dwight D. Eisenhower founded the American Assembly—sometimes calling itself the Arden House Group, taking this name from its headquarters and meeting place. The Assembly holds a series of meetings at Arden House in New York City about every six months, and other round-table discussions at varying intervals throughout the nation.

The 19th meeting of the Arden House Group, which ended May 7, 1961, was typical of all others, in that it was planned and conducted by members of the Council on Foreign Relations—and concluded with recommendations concerning American policy, which, if followed, would best serve the ends of the Kremlin.

This 1961 Arden House meeting dealt with the problem of disarmament. Henry M. Wriston (President of American Assembly and Director of the Council on Foreign Relations) presided over the three major discussion groups—each group, in turn, was under the chairmanship of a member of the Council: Raymond J. Sontag of the University of California; Milton Katz, Director of International Legal Studies at Harvard; and Dr. Philip E. Mosely, Director of Studies for the Council on Foreign Relations.

John J. McCloy (a member of the CFR) as President Kennedy's Director of Disarmament, sent three subordinates to participate. Two of the three (Edmund A. Gullion, Deputy Director of the Disarmament Administration; and Shepard Stone, a Ford Foundation official) are members of the CFR.

Here are two major recommendations which the May, 1961, American Assembly meeting made:

(1) that the United States avoid weapons and measures which might give "undue provocation" to the Soviets, and which might reduce the likelihood of disarmament agreements;

(2) that the United States strengthen its conventional military forces for participation in "limited wars" but avoid building up an ordnance of nuclear weapons.

We cannot match the communist nations in manpower or "conventional military forces" and should not try. Our only hope is to keep our military manpower in reserve, and uncommitted, in the United States, while building an overwhelming superiority in nuclear weapons. When we "strengthen our conventional forces for participation in limited wars," we are leaving the Soviets with the initiative to say when and where those wars will be fought; and we are committing ourselves to fight with the kind of forces in which the Soviets will inevitably have superiority. More than that, we are consuming so much of our economic resources that we do not have enough left for weaponry of the kind that would defend our homeland.

AMERICANS FOR DEMOCRATIC ACTION

The ADA was founded in April, 1947, at a meeting in the old Willard Hotel, Washington, D. C. Members of the Council on Foreign Relations dominated this meeting—and have dominated the ADA ever since.

Here are members of the Council on Foreign Relations who are, or were, top officials in Americans For Democratic Action: Francis Biddle, Chester Bowles, Marquis Childs, Elmer Davis, William H. Davis, David Dubinsky, Thomas K. Finletter, John Kenneth Galbraith, Palmer Hoyt, Hubert H. Humphrey, Jacob K. Javits, Herbert H. Lehman, Reinhold Niebuhr, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.

Here are some of the policies which the ADA openly and vigorously advocated in 1961:

Abolition of the House Committee on Un-American Activities

Congressional investigation of the John Birch Society

Total Disarmament under United Nations control

U. S. recognition of red China

Admission of red China to the United Nations, in place of nationalist China

Federal aid to all public schools

Drastic overhaul of our immigration laws, to permit a more "liberal" admission of immigrants

Urban renewal and planning for all cities

* * * * *

Here is a good, brief characterization of the ADA, from a Los Angeles Times editorial, September 18, 1961:

"The ADA members ... are as an organization strikingly like the British Fabian Socialists.... The Fabians stood for non-Marxian evolutionary socialism, to be achieved not by class war but by ballot....

"ADA is not an organization for subversive violence like Marxist-Lenin communism.... The socialism they want to bring about would be quite as total, industrially, as that in Russia, but they would accomplish it by legislation, not by shooting, and, of course, by infiltrating the executive branch of the government...."

SANE NUCLEAR POLICY, INC.

In 1955, Bertrand Russell (British pro-communist socialist) and the late Albert Einstein (notorious for the number of communist fronts he supported) held a meeting in London (attended by communists and socialists from all over the world). In a fanfare of publicity, Russell and Einstein demanded international co-operation among atomic scientists.

Taking his inspiration from this meeting, Cyrus Eaton (wealthy American industrialist, notorious for his consistent pro-communist sympathies), in 1956, held the first "Pugwash Conference," which was a gathering of pro-Soviet propagandists, called scientists, from red China, the Soviet Union, and Western nations.

Another Pugwash Conference was held in 1957; and from these Pugwash Conferences, the idea for a Sane Nuclear Policy, Inc., emerged.

* * * * *

Sane Nuclear Policy, Inc., was founded in November, 1957, with national headquarters in New York City, and with Bertrand Russell of England and Swedish socialist Gunnar Myrdal (among others) as honorary sponsors.

Officers of Sane Nuclear Policy, Inc., are largely second-level affiliates of the Council on Foreign Relations, with a good representation from the CFR itself. Here are past and present officials of SANE, who are also members of the Council on Foreign Relations: Harry A. Bullis, Henry Seidel Canby, Norman Cousins, Clark M. Eichelberger, Lewis Mumford, Earl D. Osborn, Elmo Roper, James T. Shotwell, James P. Warburg.

Other national officials of SANE, who are not members of the CFR, but worthy of note, are: Steve Allen, Harry Belafonte, Walt Kelly, Martin Luther King, Linus Pauling, Norman Thomas, Bruno Walter.

A typical activity of SANE was a public rally at Madison Square Garden in New York City on May 19, 1960, featuring speeches by Eleanor Roosevelt, Walter Reuther, Norman Thomas, Alf Landon, Israel Goldstein, and G. Mennen Williams. All speakers demanded disarmament and strengthening the United Nations until it becomes strong enough to maintain world peace.

Commenting on this SANE rally at Madison Square Garden, Senator James O. Eastland, Chairman of the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee said (in a press release from his office, dated October 12, 1960):

"The communists publicized the meeting well in advance through their own and sympathetic periodicals.... The affair, in Madison Square Garden May 19, was sponsored by the Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy.... Chief organizer of the Garden meeting, however, was one Henry H. Abrams of 11 Riverside Drive, New York, New York, who was a veteran member of the communist party.... It is to the credit of the officers of the organization that, when Abrams' record of communist connections was brought to their attention, Abrams was immediately discharged."

FREE EUROPE COMMITTEE

The Free Europe Committee, Inc., was founded in New York, primarily by Herbert H. Lehman (then United States Senator) in 1949. Its revenue comes from the big foundations (principally, Ford) and from annual fund-raising drives conducted in the name of Crusade for Freedom. The main activity of The Free Europe Committee (apart from the fund raising) is the running of Radio Free Europe and Free Europe Press.

Every year, Crusade for Freedom (with major assistance from Washington officialdom) conducts a vigorous nationwide drive, pleading for "truth dollars" from the American people to finance the activities of Radio Free Europe and Free Europe Press, which are supposed to be fighting communism behind the iron curtain by spreading the truth about communism to people in the captive satellite nations.

It is widely known among well-informed anti-communists, however, that Radio Free Europe actually helps, rather than hurts, the cause of international communism—particularly in the captive nations.

Radio Free Europe broadcasts tell the people behind the iron curtain that communism is bad—as if they did not know this better than the RFE broadcasters do; but the broadcasts consistently support the programs, and present the ideology, of international socialism, always advocating the equivalent of a one-world socialist society as the solution to all problems. This is, of course, the communist solution. And it is also the solution desired by the Council on Foreign Relations.

A bill of particulars which reveals that Radio Free Europe helps rather than hurts communism with its so-called "anti-communist" broadcasts can be found in the Congressional Record for June 20, 1956. An article, beginning on page A4908, was put in the Record by former Congressman Albert H. Bosch, of New York. It was written by George Brada, a Czechoslovakian who fled his homeland after the communists had taken over in 1948. Brada now lives in Western Germany and is active in a number of anti-communist groups in Western Europe.

In reality, the Free Europe Committee and its subsidiary organizations constitute another propaganda front for the Council on Foreign Relations. Here, for example, are the CFR members who are, or have been, top officials of Free Europe Committee, Crusade for Freedom, or Radio Free Europe—or all three: Adolf A. Berle, David K. E. Bruce, General Lucius D. Clay, Will L. Clayton, Allen W. Dulles, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mark F. Ethridge, Julius Fleischmann, Henry Ford II, Walter S. Gifford, Joseph C. Grew, Palmer Hoyt, C. D. Jackson, Herbert H. Lehman, Henry R. Luce, Edward R. Murrow, Irving S. Olds, Arthur W. Page, David Sarnoff, Whitney H. Shepardson, George N. Shuster, Charles M. Spofford, Harold E. Stassen, H. Gregory Thomas, Walter H. Wheeler, Jr.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE

The Council on Foreign Relations has had a strong (though, probably, not controlling) hand in the NAACP. Felix Frankfurter, CFR member, was an attorney for the NAACP for ten years. Other CFR members who are, or were, officials of the NAACP: Ralph Bunche, Norman Cousins, Lewis S. Gannett, John Hammond, Herbert H. Lehman.

AMERICAN COMMITTEE ON AFRICA

The American Committee on Africa is a propaganda agency which concentrates on condemning the apartheid policies of the government of the Union of South Africa—a nation of white people (practically encircled by millions of black savages), who feel that their racial policies are their only hope of avoiding total submergence and destruction. In addition to disseminating propaganda to create ill-will for South Africa among Americans, the American Committee on Africa gives financial assistance to agitators and revolutionaries in the Union of South Africa.

It has, for example, given financial aid to 156 persons charged with treason under the laws of the Union.

Here are some of the Council on Foreign Relations members who are officials of the American Committee on Africa: Gardner Cowles, Lewis S. Gannett, John Gunther, Senator Hubert H. Humphrey, Dr. Robert L. Johnson, Dr. Reinhold Niebuhr, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. Mrs. Chester Bowles is also an official.

WORLD POPULATION EMERGENCY CAMPAIGN

The World Population Emergency Campaign urges the United States government to use American tax money in an effort to solve the world population problem. It specifically endorses the 1959 Draper Report on foreign aid, which recommended that the United States appropriate money for a United Nations population control project.

Leadership of the World Population Emergency Campaign is dominated by such CFR members as: Will L. Clayton, Lammot DuPont Copeland, Major General William H. Draper, John Nuveen. Most of the members of the "Campaign" also belong to the Atlantic Union Committee, or to some other second-level affiliate of the CFR.

SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL SERVICE

The School of International Service at American University in Washington, D. C., initiated a new academic program to train foreign service officers and other officials in newly independent nations, commencing in September, 1961. The foreign diplomats will study courses on land reforms, finance, labor problems, and several courses on Soviet and Chinese communism. The program (under the newly created Center of Diplomacy and Foreign Policy) is directed by former Under Secretary of State Loy W. Henderson, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION

In 1919, Elihu Root and Stephen Duggan (both members of the Council on Foreign Relations) founded the Institute of International Education, to develop international understanding and goodwill through exchange of students, teachers, and others in the educational field.

Prior to World War II, the Institute was financed by the Carnegie Corporation. Since the War, the federal government has contributed a little more than one-third of the Institute's annual income of about 1.8 million dollars. Foundations, corporations, individuals, and colleges, contribute the rest.

The Institute is wholly a CFR operation. Its officials are: Stanley C. Allyn, Edward W. Barrett, Chester Bowles, Ralph J. Bunche, William C. Foster, Arthur A. Houghton, Grayson L. Kirk, Edward R. Murrow, George N. Shuster, and James D. Zellerbach—all members of the CFR.



Chapter 10

COMMUNICATIONS MEDIA



In nine chapters of this Volume, I have managed to discuss only a few of the most powerful organizations interlocked with the Council on Foreign Relations, to form an amazing web which is the invisible government of the United States. There are scores of such organizations.

I have managed to name, relatively, only a few of the influential individuals who are members of the Council on Foreign Relations, or of affiliated agencies, and who also occupy key jobs in the executive branch of government, including the Presidency.

I have asserted that the objective of the invisible government is to convert America into a socialist nation and then make it a unit in a one-world socialist system.

The managers of the combine do not admit this, of course. They are "liberals" who say that the old "negative" kind of government we used to have is inadequate for this century. The liberals' "positive" foreign policy is said to be necessary for "world peace" and for meeting "America's responsibility" in the world. Their "positive" domestic policies are said to be necessary for the continued improvement and progress of our "free-enterprise" system.

But the "positive" foreign policy for peace has dragged us into so many international commitments (many of which are in direct conflict with each other: such as, our subsidizing national independence for former colonies of European powers, while we are also subsidizing the European powers trying to keep the colonies) that, if we continue in our present direction, we will inevitably find ourselves in perpetual war for perpetual peace—or we will surrender our freedom and national independence and become an out-voted province in a socialist one-world system.

The liberals' "positive" domestic policies always bring the federal government into the role of subsidizing and controlling the economic activities of the people; and that is the known highway to the total, tyrannical socialist state.

The Council on Foreign Relations is rapidly achieving its purpose. An obvious reason for its success: it is reaching the American public with its clever propaganda.

However much power the CFR combine may have inside the agencies of government; however extensive the reach of its propaganda through organizations designed to "educate" the public to acceptance of CFR ideas—the CFR needs to reach the mass audience of Americans who do not belong to, or attend the meetings of, or read material distributed by, the propaganda organizations. Council on Foreign Relations leaders are aware of this need, and they have met it.

* * * * *

In the 1957 Annual Report of the Committee for Economic Development (a major propaganda arm of the CFR), Gardner Cowles, then Chairman of CED's Information Committee, did a bit of boasting about how successful CED had been in communicating its ideas to the general public. Mr. Cowles said:

"The value of CED's research and recommendations is directly related to its ability to communicate them ... the organization's role as an agency that can influence private and public economic policies and decisions ... can be effective ... only to the extent that CED gets its ideas across to thinking people....

Previous Part     1  2  3  4  5     Next Part
Home - Random Browse