sofia
12-07-2009, 08:21 AM
Neo-Conservatives profess to adore Barry Goldwater, did they know he wrote this piece...in which he exposes the CFR, NWO, and Tri-Laterals??...
************************************************** *********
Goldwater Sees Elitist Sentiments Threatening Liberties
By U.S. Senator Barry M. Goldwater (1979)
In September 1939, two members of the Council on Foreign Relations visited the State Department to offer the council’s services.
They proposed to do research and make recommendations for the department without formal assignment or responsibility, particularly in four areas - security armaments, economic and financial problems, political problems, and territorial problems. The Rockefeller Foundation agreed to finance the operation of this plan.
From that day forward, the Council on Foreign Relations has placed its members in 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. [emphasis added]
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.
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 protégé, was in charge of foreign policy. When Jimmy Carter was elected, Kissinger was replaced by Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Council member and David Rockefeller protégé.
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 implications in Nelson Rockefeller’s presentation have become concrete proposals advanced by David Rockefeller’s newest international cabal, the Trilateral Commission.
Whereas the Council on Foreign Relations is distinctly national, representation is allocated equally to Western Europe, Japan and the United States. It is intended to act as the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States.
Zbigniew Brzezinski and David Rockefeller screened and selected every individual who was invited to participate in shaping and administering the proposed New World Order.
In the late 1950s, Brzezinski, an accepted member of the inner circle of academics, asserting the need for global strategies, was openly anti-communist. By 1964, he had modified his criticism of communism. In his prospectus describing the Trilateral commission, David Rockefeller said that he intended to bring the best brains of the world together to bear on the problems of the future.
I find nothing inherently sinister in this original proposal, although the name he gave his new creation strikes me as both grandiose and presumptuous. The accepted definition of a commission is a group nominated by some higher authority to perform a specific function.
The Trilateral Organization created by David Rockefeller was a surrogate -- its members selected by Rockefeller, its purposes defined by Rockefeller, its funding supplied by Rockefeller. Whether or not the approximately 200 individuals selected for membership on the commission represent the “best brains” in the world is an arguable proposition.
Examination of the membership roster establishes beyond question that all those invited to join were members of the power elite, enlisted with great skill and singleness of purpose from the banking, commercial, political and communications sectors.
Nor was the governmental community over-looked. Invitations to join were extended to Sen. Walter Mondale, Gov. Jimmy Carter of Georgia, George Ball, Cyrus Vance, Paul Warnke and Reps. Donald Fraser and John Brademas, among others.
In my view, the Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power -- political, monetary, intellectual, and ecclesiastical. All this is to be done in the interest of creating a more peaceful, more productive world community. I have no hesitancy about judging its wisdom and the results of its actions.
A report presented at the plenary meeting of the Trilateral Commission in May 1975, at Kyoto, Japan, called for an enlargement of central authority and expressed a lack of confidence in democratically arrived at public decisions.
It also suggested that it would be helpful to impose prior restrictions on the press and to restructure the laws of libel to check the power of the press. I”ve suffered as greatly from an abusive press as any man in public life, but I get an itchy, uncomfortable feeling at the base of my spine when someone suggest that government should control the news.
The entire Trilateral Commission approach is strictly economic. No recognition is given to the political condition. Total reliance is placed on materialism. The commission emphasizes the necessity of eliminating artificial barriers to world commerce, tariff, export duties, quota - an objective that I strongly support. What it proposes to substitute is an international economy managed and controlled by international monetary groups.
No attempt has been made to explain why the people of the Western world enjoy economic abundance. Freedom -- spiritual, political, economic -- is denied any importance in the Trilateral Construction of the Next Century.
The Trilateral Commission even selects and elevates its candidates to positions of political power. David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski found Jimmy Carter to be an ideal candidate, for example. They helped him win the Democratic nomination and the Presidency. To accomplish their purpose, they mobilized the money power of the Wall Street bankers, the intellectual influence of the academic community -- which is subservient to the wealthy of the great tax-free foundations -- and the Media controllers represented in the membership of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. It was no accident that Brzezinski and Rockefeller invited Carter to join the Commission in 1973. But they weren’t ready to bet all their chips on Carter.
They made him a founding member of the commission but to keep their options open, they also brought in Walter Mondale and Elliot Richardson, a highly visible Republican member of the Nixon administration, and they looked at other potential nominees.
After his nomination, Carter chose Mondale as his vice president. He chose Brzezinski as his foreign affairs adviser and Cyrus Vance as his secretary of state.
************************************************** *********
Goldwater Sees Elitist Sentiments Threatening Liberties
By U.S. Senator Barry M. Goldwater (1979)
In September 1939, two members of the Council on Foreign Relations visited the State Department to offer the council’s services.
They proposed to do research and make recommendations for the department without formal assignment or responsibility, particularly in four areas - security armaments, economic and financial problems, political problems, and territorial problems. The Rockefeller Foundation agreed to finance the operation of this plan.
From that day forward, the Council on Foreign Relations has placed its members in 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. [emphasis added]
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.
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 protégé, was in charge of foreign policy. When Jimmy Carter was elected, Kissinger was replaced by Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Council member and David Rockefeller protégé.
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 implications in Nelson Rockefeller’s presentation have become concrete proposals advanced by David Rockefeller’s newest international cabal, the Trilateral Commission.
Whereas the Council on Foreign Relations is distinctly national, representation is allocated equally to Western Europe, Japan and the United States. It is intended to act as the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States.
Zbigniew Brzezinski and David Rockefeller screened and selected every individual who was invited to participate in shaping and administering the proposed New World Order.
In the late 1950s, Brzezinski, an accepted member of the inner circle of academics, asserting the need for global strategies, was openly anti-communist. By 1964, he had modified his criticism of communism. In his prospectus describing the Trilateral commission, David Rockefeller said that he intended to bring the best brains of the world together to bear on the problems of the future.
I find nothing inherently sinister in this original proposal, although the name he gave his new creation strikes me as both grandiose and presumptuous. The accepted definition of a commission is a group nominated by some higher authority to perform a specific function.
The Trilateral Organization created by David Rockefeller was a surrogate -- its members selected by Rockefeller, its purposes defined by Rockefeller, its funding supplied by Rockefeller. Whether or not the approximately 200 individuals selected for membership on the commission represent the “best brains” in the world is an arguable proposition.
Examination of the membership roster establishes beyond question that all those invited to join were members of the power elite, enlisted with great skill and singleness of purpose from the banking, commercial, political and communications sectors.
Nor was the governmental community over-looked. Invitations to join were extended to Sen. Walter Mondale, Gov. Jimmy Carter of Georgia, George Ball, Cyrus Vance, Paul Warnke and Reps. Donald Fraser and John Brademas, among others.
In my view, the Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power -- political, monetary, intellectual, and ecclesiastical. All this is to be done in the interest of creating a more peaceful, more productive world community. I have no hesitancy about judging its wisdom and the results of its actions.
A report presented at the plenary meeting of the Trilateral Commission in May 1975, at Kyoto, Japan, called for an enlargement of central authority and expressed a lack of confidence in democratically arrived at public decisions.
It also suggested that it would be helpful to impose prior restrictions on the press and to restructure the laws of libel to check the power of the press. I”ve suffered as greatly from an abusive press as any man in public life, but I get an itchy, uncomfortable feeling at the base of my spine when someone suggest that government should control the news.
The entire Trilateral Commission approach is strictly economic. No recognition is given to the political condition. Total reliance is placed on materialism. The commission emphasizes the necessity of eliminating artificial barriers to world commerce, tariff, export duties, quota - an objective that I strongly support. What it proposes to substitute is an international economy managed and controlled by international monetary groups.
No attempt has been made to explain why the people of the Western world enjoy economic abundance. Freedom -- spiritual, political, economic -- is denied any importance in the Trilateral Construction of the Next Century.
The Trilateral Commission even selects and elevates its candidates to positions of political power. David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski found Jimmy Carter to be an ideal candidate, for example. They helped him win the Democratic nomination and the Presidency. To accomplish their purpose, they mobilized the money power of the Wall Street bankers, the intellectual influence of the academic community -- which is subservient to the wealthy of the great tax-free foundations -- and the Media controllers represented in the membership of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. It was no accident that Brzezinski and Rockefeller invited Carter to join the Commission in 1973. But they weren’t ready to bet all their chips on Carter.
They made him a founding member of the commission but to keep their options open, they also brought in Walter Mondale and Elliot Richardson, a highly visible Republican member of the Nixon administration, and they looked at other potential nominees.
After his nomination, Carter chose Mondale as his vice president. He chose Brzezinski as his foreign affairs adviser and Cyrus Vance as his secretary of state.