|Copyright © PropagandaMatrix.com 2001-2005. All rights reserved.|
|FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.|
Foreign Policy and the Power Elite
Any objective observer can see the wisdom of the Founding Fathers’ foreign policy philosophy of non-interventionism: friendly trade relationships with all nations, but pre-emptive war and alliances with none. It was a philosophy that kept us safe and prosperous until 1898, when we began to turn from its wisdom, as we declared war on Spain. The 20th century witnessed further ill-advised departures from the foreign policy philosophy of our Founding Fathers. Today, aside from a few scattered patriots, Washington can essentially be divided into two camps, internationalists and neo-conservative internationalist/interventionists, neither of which is truly American, and both of which, controlled by the same power elite, lead to the same ends: world government.
The first camp, mostly comprised of Democrat internationalists,
genuinely seeks submergence of the US into a UN-controlled world government
in which the EU and an increasingly socialist US hold the seats of power.
Their philosophy aligns with that of the Europeans; they believe in “democratic
socialism” (two very un-American words) and the end of national sovereignty.
The political values of this camp do not reflect, in the least, the political
philosophy of the Founding Fathers.
This socialist internationalist philosophy can most clearly trace its roots to the scheming of Edward M. House (or “Colonel House”), who was a close advisor to Woodrow Wilson, and was even described by Wilson as his “independent self.” The philosophy of House was a far cry from that of our Founding Fathers. In fact, he argued that the Constitution was a product of out-dated 18th century philosophy, and it needed to be scrapped. His solution was socialist world government. In his own words, what he sought was “socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx.”
Additionally, he was the primary advocate for the League of Nations and became the principle founder of the Council on Foreign Relations in 1921 after the Senate’s refusal to agree to U.S. membership in the League. The Council on Foreign Relations, then, became the brains behind the New Deal and the United Nations, and is described by many as the ruling establishment even to this day. It is not difficult to see how this philosophy has been leading us into the “new world order” (their own phrase) that these internationalists have dreamed of for the last century, as the United Nations has grown in power over the decades.
The second camp, mostly comprised of Republican neo-conservatives, seeks to cooperate with and empower the UN, but has as its main goal a virtual “Pax Americana” and the “greatness of the state”, brought about through endless pre-emptive war. As detailed extensively by Ron Paul in his excellent speech, Neo-Conned, these self-proclaimed neo-conservatives are not conservative and there is nothing new about the disgraceful philosophy to which they adhere. Their philosophy of endless war and big government really finds its roots in Machiavelli’s obsession with the “greatness of the state” along with Trotsky’s belief in “permanent revolution.” It is well documented and undeniable that neo-conservatism is not compatible with the non-interventionism, limited government, and constitutionalism held to by our Founding Fathers. Individual liberty is not even on their radar, much less is it the priority of neo-conservatives.
Interestingly enough, most of the prominent neo-conservatives are also part of the CFR power elite. Clearly, the philosophy of the neo-cons does not detract from the move toward world government in the least; rather, neo-conservatism hastens its coming in an obvious way, as well as a round-about way. It does so, first, because neo-cons continually legitimize the UN, seeking to “give teeth” to the world body, and back its resolutions with military force. This pro-UN stance is much neglected by good Americans who desire to see Republicans as defenders of American sovereignty. Yet it is clearly obvious that these neo-cons are not anti-UN. They seek to fight wars to uphold its resolutions and they seek to cooperate with the UN whenever possible.
Secondly, neo-conservatives aid in the empowerment of the world government by energizing the left wing through their torturous disregard for life and human dignity. By doing this, the neo-cons not only give America a bad name, but also spur world-wide left-wingers to unite and beg for a new world order to stop the American “fascists.” This is demonstrated clearly in the fact that France and Germany now see themselves and the whole of the EU as a counterbalance to the US. They seek to have the seat of power of the coming world government sit in Europe, rather than in the US. In short, the stronger the neo-cons get, the more they energize the left-wing push for world government.
So, in the end, both internationalism and neo-conservatism are un-American and will lead to the empowerment of world government. The common denominator in these two groups, as noted above, is the Council on Foreign Relations. This connection shows that this push toward world government and the destruction of national sovereignty is not by accident. All events in history occur because of multiple forces acting together, including behind-the-scenes actors.
Carroll Quigley, former Georgetown Professor and mentor to Bill Clinton, in his historical account, Tragedy and Hope, described the formation of the CFR. He explained that he had insider information on this semi-secret organization, and mentioned that he had viewed their secret records for two years. The CFR, since its inception, has succeeded in getting its members into positions of power in government, academia, media, corporate America, and international finance. It has, since the New Deal, held a tight grip on the State Department, and to this day exercises an inordinate amount of power in our government, in the Republican and Democrat parties alike. In fact, Quigley noted that the strategy of the establishment was and ought to be to control both parties, so that the voters could “throw the rascals out” and achieve no change in policy when it comes to matters of constitutional import and national sovereignty.
One might inevitably ask, “if the CFR has such a wide net of influence on the foreign policy of the US to the extent that they could nearly determine national policy, why hasn’t the average American even heard of the organization?” The answer to this is simple; it is the same reason why the average American is ignorant of the Bohemian Grove, the Bilderberg Group, and other clubs and events in which the elites are engaged. The reason is this: members at these groups include the media giants who decide what we hear, read, and see on the news. It is in their interest, then, to keep their scheming quiet. This fact was illustrated quite poignantly by David Rockefeller, when he praised the media for their secrecy:
“We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."
This quote seems too unbelievable to be true, but it is truly undeniable; Rockefeller spoke these words in Baden-Baden, Germany in 1991.
Furthermore, many people are ignorant of CFR influence because any talk of world government or “new world order” has been marginalized as the talk of “conspiracy theorists.” Despite the proof of what the aims of the CFR really are, these good Americans have been neutralized and ostracized, striking fear into anyone else who might make such “ridiculous” claims.
So, when all is said and done, internationalism and neo-conservatism are two un-American philosophies, each being used by the same power elite to achieve its long-sought-after goal of a “new world order.” These two philosophies ought to be rejected by Americans who love liberty and embrace national sovereignty.
Internationalism and neo-conservatism must be exposed as
the tools of the new world order that they truly are. Until this happens,
the nations of the world will continue blindly down the road toward world