The fact is, as historian and economist Murray N. Rothbard shows, the CFR/Trilateral network is just the latest incarnation of a trend deeply rooted in modern American history. Long before the founding of the CFR and the Trilateral Commission, there was a power elite in the USA; this elite will most likely continue long after these organizations are gone or have transmuted into something else. Rothbard’s unmasking of the historical and economic roots of this trend is crucial to understanding that this is not a ’conspiracy’ centered around the CFR and Trilateralists as such, but an ideological trend traditionally centered in the Northeast, among the upper classes, and deeply rooted in American history.

If it’s conspiratorial to believe that people engage in activities to achieve economic, political, and personal goals, then rational men and women must necessarily admit guilt to this. The alternative is to imply that human actions are aimless, random, and inexplicable. History, in this light, is a series of disconnected coincidences.

Yet, it would be incorrect to call the Rothbardian worldview a ’conspiracy theory.’ To say that the Morgan family was involved in a ’conspiracy’ to draw the USA into World War I, when they actually openly used all their cunning, every lever both economic and political, to drive the country into the ’war to end all wars,’ seems woefully inadequate. This was not some secret cabal meeting in a company’s soundproofed conference room but a ’conspiracy’ of ideas openly and loudly expressed.

Rothbard’s history of the Federal Reserve described the role of a new intellectual class, without whom the banks would not have been successful. For Rothbard, the system that deceived the American public and got them to accept the Federal Reserve represented a ’new alliance between the State and Opinion Molders’ which was a ’partnership between government, business leaders, intellectual, and expert.’ Within this alliance, the intellectual served two functions: ’(a) to help run and plan the new state system; and (b) to apologize for the new world order.’ If historians were part of this group of intellectuals that helped create the Federal Reserve, it’s no wonder the Morgans and Rockefellers’ family interests are not widely understood today.

In The Case Against the Fed, Rothbard even dismissed traditional academic aversion to the dreaded ’historical conspiracy theory.’ Here, the question was ’not some sort of ’theory of history,’ but a willingness to use one’s plain horse sense. All the analyst or historian needs to do is to assume, as a hypothesis, that people in government or lobbying groups for government policies might at least have as much self-interest and profit hunger as people in business or the rest of everyday life, and to examine the significant and revealing patterns that he will see before his eyes.’ For Rothbard, the most significant pattern was not so much Democrats vs. Republicans but an interchange or conflict between the Morgan family and their allies on one side and the Rockefeller alliance on the other. ’Historians who themselves are not inclined to question the Federal Reserve’s real workings missed the significance of the Morgan/Rockefeller model because they were not ’equipped for an analysis of the power elite or ruling class.’ Established historians thus continued to focus on the traditional but sanctioned knowledge channels – superficial party divisions.

One of the most well-known economists in the USA in modern times has directed sharp criticism at the Federal Reserve system. Joseph Stiglitz – former chief economist at the World Bank and a Nobel laureate in Economic Sciences – said at a conference at the Roosevelt Institute in 2010, that the structure of the Federal Reserve system is so fraught with conflicts that it is corrupt and undermines democracy. Stiglitz emphasized that the Fed banks have clear conflicts of interest, as the banks are largely governed by a board that includes officials from the banks they are supposed to oversee.

The Unplanned Federal Reserve
The Federal Reserve was the outgrowth of five years of planning, alteration, and compromise among various political and concerned financial groups, led by big finance, including the Morgans, Rockefellers, Kuhn, Loebs, along with their various economists and technicians.

Particularly prominent among the Rockefeller interests were Senator Nelson W. Aldrich (R.-RI.), father-in-law of John D. Rockefeller, Jr., and Frank A. Vanderlip, vice president of Rockefeller’s National City Bank of New York. From Kuhn, Loebs came the distinguished Paul Moritz Warburg, of the German investment banking firm M.M. Warburg and Company. Warburg emigrated to the USA in 1902 to become a senior partner in Kuhn, Loeb & Co., after which he spent most of his time agitating for an American central bank.

Likewise, a driving force for the Federal Reserve was Jacob H. Schiff, the powerful head of Kuhn, Loeb, to which Warburg was related by marriage. Backing and sponsoring Warburg in academia was the prominent economist from Columbia University, Edwin R.A. Seligman, of the investment banking family J. & W. Seligman & Co; Seligman was brother-in-law to Warburg’s brother-in-law.

The Morgans were prominently represented in the planning and agitation for a Central Bank by Henry P. Davison, a Morgan partner; Charles D. Norton, president of Morgan’s First National Bank of New York; A. Barton Hepburn, head of Morgan’s Chase National Bank; and Victor Morawetz, attorney and banker in Morgan’s circle and chairman of the executive committee of the Morgan-controlled Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad.

While the establishment of the Federal Reserve system in late 1913 was a result of the coalition between Morgan, Rockefeller, and Kuhn, Loeb interests, there is no question about which financial grouping controlled personnel and policies of the Federal Reserve once it was established. (Although influential in Federal Reserve’s framework decisions, board member Warburg was disqualified from leadership due to his pro-German views.) The first board of the Federal Reserve, appointed by President Wilson in 1914, included Warburg; one of Rockefeller’s men, Frederic A. Delano, uncle of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and president of the Rockefeller-controlled Wabash Railway; and a banker from Alabama, who had connections to both Morgan and Rockefeller.

Overshadowing these three were three definitive Morgan men, and a university economist, Professor Adolph C. Miller from Berkeley, whose wife’s family had connections to Morgan. The three definitive Morgan men were Secretary of the Treasury McAdoo; Comptroller of the Currency John Skelton Williams, a Virginia banker and a long-time supporter of McAdoo on Morgan’s railways; and Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Charles S. Hamlin, a Boston attorney who married into a wealthy Albany family long connected to the Morgan-dominated New York Central Railroad.

More important than the composition of the Federal Reserve Board, however, was the man who became the first governor of the New York Federal Reserve Bank and who single-handedly dominated Fed policy from its inception until his death in 1928. This man was Benjamin Strong, who had spent virtually his entire business and personal life in the circle of top colleagues of J.P. Morgan. A secretary in several trust companies (banks engaged in trust business) in New York City, Strong became a neighbor and close friend to three of Morgan’s top partners, Henry P. Davison, Dwight Morrow, and Thomas W. Lamont. Davison, specifically, became his mentor, and brought him into the company Morgan’s Bankers Trust, where he soon succeeded Lamont as vice-president, and then eventually became president. When Strong was offered the position of governor of the New York Fed, it was Davison who persuaded him to take the job.

Strong was an enthusiast for the U.S. entry into the war, and it was his mentor Davison who had planned the coup to get Morgan designated as sole underwriter and purchasing agent for Great Britain and France. Strong worked quickly to formalize cooperation with the Bank of England, a collaboration that would continue powerfully throughout the 1920s. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York became the foreign agent for the Bank of England and vice versa.

The main collaboration throughout the 1920s, much of it kept secret from the Federal Reserve Board in Washington, was between Strong and the man who would soon become governor of the Bank of England, Montagu Collet Norman. Norman and Strong were not only good friends but had important connections in the investment banking industry; Norman’s uncle was a partner in the great English banking firm Baring Brothers, and his grandfather a partner in the international banking syndicate Brown Shipley & Co., the London branch of the Brown brothers’ Wall Street banking firm. Before joining the Bank of England, Norman himself had worked at the Brown Brothers office on Wall Street, and later he returned to London to become a partner in Brown Shipley.

The main fruit of the Norman-Strong collaboration was that Strong was pressured to drive up inflation of money and credit in the U.S. throughout the 1920s, to prevent England from losing gold to the U.S. due to their inflationary policies. Britain’s dilemma arose from their insistence on returning to the gold standard after the war at the highly overvalued pre-war parity of the pound, and then insisting on driving up inflation instead of devaluing to make their exports competitively priced on the world market. Thus, Britain needed other countries, especially the U.S., to devalue along with them. The Strong-Norman-Morgan connection did the job, it set the stage for the great financial collapse of 1929-1931.

As the First World War drew to a close, influential Britons and Americans decided that intimate post-war cooperation between the two countries required more than just close cooperation between the central banks. What was also needed were permanent organizations to promote a common Anglo-American policy to dominate the post-war world. (Murray N. Rothbard, Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy, p. 21)

The Round Table
In England, Cecil Rhodes had already started a secret society in 1891 with the goal of maintaining and expanding the British Empire to re-incorporate the USA. By the end of the 19th century, the leadership, organization, and recruitment of the society fell on the shoulders of Rhodes’ friend and right-hand man, Alfred Lord Milner. The Milner Group dominated domestic planning in Great Britain during World War I, especially planning for post-war foreign and colonial policy. The Milner Group appointed the British delegation of experts to Versailles. To advocate the intellectual agitation for such a policy, the Milner Group also set up Round Table groups in England and the rest of the world in 1910.

The first American asked to join the Round Table was George Louis Beer, who came to their attention when his books attacked the American Revolution and praised the British Empire as it was in the 19th century. Such loyalty could not go unrewarded, so Beer became a member of the group around 1912 and became the American correspondent for the Round Table magazine. We have seen Beer’s pro-British role as a colonial expert for The Inquiry. He was also the American chief expert on colonial affairs at Versailles, and afterward, the Milner Group made Beer head of the Mandates Department of the League of Nations (early UN).

During the war, Beer, along with Anglophile Yale historian George Burton Adams, and powerful Columbia historian James T. Shotwell, a key leader of The Inquiry and head of the National Board for Historical Service, which sent deceptive propaganda for the war effort, founded a secret society to advocate Anglo-American cooperation. Finally, led by Beer for the USA and the head of the Round Table group in England, Lionel Curtis, the British and American historians at Versailles took the opportunity to found a permanent organization to agitate for an informal, if not formal, reconstructed Anglo-American empire.

The new group, the Institute of International Affairs, was founded at a meeting at the Majestic Hotel in Paris on May 30, 1919. A six-man organizing committee was formed, three Milnerites from Britain, and three Americans: Shotwell; Harvard historian Archibald C. Coolidge, head of the Eastern European division of The Inquiry, and a member of the Morgan-oriented finance family from Boston; and James Brown Scott, the Morgan lawyer who would write Robert Bacon’s biography. The British branch, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, set up a committee to oversee the writing of a multi-volume history of the Versailles Peace Conference; the committee was funded by a gift from Thomas W. Lamont, a Morgan partner. (Murray N. Rothbard, Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy, p. 25)

The American branch of that group took a while to get going. Finally, the inactive American Institute of International Affairs merged with a dissolved company, started in 1918, by New York businessmen concerned with the post-war world, and organized as a dinner club to listen to foreign visitors. This organization, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), had as its honorary president the Morgan lawyer Elihu Root, while Alexander Hemphill, chairman of Morgan’s guarantee funds, was chairman of its finance committee. In August 1921, the two organizations merged into the new Council on Foreign Relations, Inc., an immensely powerful organization that included bankers, lawyers, and intellectuals.

While various financial interests were represented in the new organization, the CFR was Morgan-dominated, from top to bottom. Honorary president was Elihu Root. President was John W. Davis, Wilson’s chief lawyer, and now principal adviser to J.P. Morgan & Co. Davis would become the Democratic presidential candidate in 1924. The treasurer for the new CFR was Edwin F. Gay, a historian of economics from Harvard, director of planning and statistics for the Shipping Board during the war, and now editor of the New York Evening Post, owned by his mentor, Morgan partner, Thomas W. Lamont.

It was Gay who had the idea to found Foreign Affairs, CFR’s quarterly journal, and who proposed both his Harvard colleague Archibald Coolidge as the first editor, and New York Post reporter Hamilton Fish Armstrong as associate editor and executive director of the CFR. Other prominent officers in the new CFR were: Frank L. Polk, former undersecretary of state and now a lawyer for J.P. Morgan & Co; Paul M. Warburg from Kuhn, Loeb; Otto H. Kahn from Kuhn, Loeb; former undersecretary of state under President Wilson, Norman H. Davis, a banking associate of the Morgan family; and as vice president, Paul D. Cravath, senior partner of the Rockefeller-oriented law firm Cravath, Swaine and Moore from Wall Street.

After World War II, the Council on Foreign Relations became dominated by the Rockefellers rather than the Morgans’ interests, a power shift that reflected a general change in the financial powers of the world at large. After World War II, as oil marched in as a prominent factor, it brought the Morgans and Rockefellers – previously intense rivals – into an Eastern establishment over which the Rockefellers became senior- and the Morgans junior partners.
(Murray N. Rothbard, Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy, p. 26)

CFR’s Policy Making
In 1977, political scientist Thomas Dye presented his address to the Southern Political Science Association at the University of California in Santa Cruz. His topic: the role that purportedly ’private’ policy-making organizations play in determining federal American policy. His address was published in 1978 as a paper in The Journal of Politics, and much space was dedicated to the significance of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in shaping American foreign policy. Overall, this was an unusual event that helped correct a mistake identified by sociologist G. William Domhoff in his 1970 book, The Higher Circles; The Governing Class in America: ”there has never been any paper on [the CFR] in any scholarly journal indexed by the Social Science and Humanities Index.” Many political scientists apparently thought this was the correct order of things and thus wanted the status quo to remain, hence Dye wrote on the first page: ”I appreciate the help I received from G. William Domhoff, from the University of California, Santa Cruz. I apologize to the distinguished political scientists who told me that [studying] the activities of private policy-makers was not ’political science.'”

It is indeed interesting that ”distinguished political scientists” would oppose examining the Council on Foreign Relations and other purportedly ’private’ policy organizations. We will return to these phenomena. But first, let’s get a grasp of what the CFR is and a context from which we can evaluate Dye’s phrase ”private policy-makers” with this organization as a reference.

In his paper, Thomas Dye writes:

”Political scientist Lester Milbraith observed that the influence of the CFR throughout the entire government apparatus is so pervasive that it is difficult to discern the CFR from government programs: ’While the Council on Foreign Relations is not funded by any government, it works so closely with the government that it is difficult to distinguish CFR’s actions stimulated by the government from autonomous actions.”

One could say it in reverse as well: it is difficult to distinguish the government’s actions stimulated by the Council from autonomous actions of the government. Dye lists quite major American foreign policy initiatives that the CFR led, ”including both the initial decision to intervene militarily in Vietnam and the later decision to withdraw.” Members and leaders [of the Council on Foreign Relations] also played a key role in the tactical decision to use the atomic bomb against Japan. War Secretary Henry L. Stimson was President Roosevelt’s chief advisor on nuclear matters and he chaired the special interim committee that President Truman established in late April 1945 to provide guidance on the use of nuclear weapons. The eight-man committee was dominated by 5 members of the CFR, including Stimson, the chairman, who had been active in several CFR programs for over ten years. One of the five council members, scientist Karl T. Compton, president of M.I.T., expressed there and then the opinion that the atomic bomb should be used to ’impress the world,’ thereby lending credibility to those who have claimed that the atomic bomb was used on Japan primarily to scare the Russians and thereby strengthen the American position as world leader.

William Putnam ’Bill’ Bundy, who was part of the CIA and a foreign policy advisor to Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, also credited the CFR with helping to lay the mental framework that led to the Marshall Plan and NATO. Thomas Dye also pointed out that many important members of the CFR are simultaneously top men in government posts. For example, ’Council members in the Kennedy-Johnson administrations included Secretary of State Dean Rusk, National Security Advisor McGeorge P. Bundy, CIA Director John McCone, and Undersecretary of State George Ball.’ A list of key figures in the CFR over the years until 1978, which Dye also provides us with, shows that many of them are former senior officials in the U.S. government.

But the CFR is not just where current and former holders of government posts meet; it is also an incubator for future holders. As William Domhoff observed:

”Douglass Cater, a journalist from Exeter and Harvard who served in Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration, has noted that ‘a diligent scholar would do well to dig into the role the purely unofficial Council on Foreign Relations has played in the care and feeding of a nascent American establishment.’ …Turning to the overarching question of government involvement… the point is made most authoritatively by John J. McCloy… director of the CFR and government appointee to a range of roles since the early 1940s: ’Whenever we needed a man,’ McCloy explained when discussing the presence of CFR members in the modern defense establishment that fought World War II, ’we thumbed through the roster of Council members and placed a call to New York.”

So in what sense, then, can we say the CFR is private? In this technical sense: the money supporting the CFR comes from private foundations and companies. It is apparent now why CFR was called a school for statesmen which comes close to being an organ of what C. Wright Mills has called the Power Elite — a group of men, with similar interests and outlooks, who shape events from invulnerable positions behind the scenes, ”by Washington journalist and CFR insider Joseph Kraft.” Financial backers of the CFR get to transform their viewpoints into policy without the scrutiny that would accompany running for public office, under the guise of working for a purportedly ’private’ organization. Even the academic world of ’distinguished political scientists,’ as we have seen, collaborates to keep the CFR in the shadows, because according to them, studies of the CFR are apparently not ’political science.”

This shadow not only obscures the policy-making process in the USA but throughout the entire Western world. Thomas Dye writes:

A discussion of the CFR would not be complete without some reference to its multinational arm — the Trilateral Commission. The Trilateral Commission was established by CFR’s chairman David Rockefeller in 1972, with the support of the CFR and the Rockefeller Foundation. The Trilateral Commission is a small group of top officials from multinational corporations and government leaders of industrial nations, who meet periodically to coordinate policy for the USA, Europe, and Japan.

A modern study of the CFR concluded the following,

”This study has revealed the roots of American imperialism in the economic, political, and strategic needs of the dominant sector of the American ruling class, with the Council on Foreign Relations, CFR, at the forefront. Their lust for power and quest for world hegemony have made the USA the greatest imperialist power in human history by sending troops to all continents and by controlling the economy and politics in large parts of the world. The primary reason for this policy has been, as we have shown in our case studies, the needs of American capitalism for a world order that is open and receptive to American expansion. In contrast to the hard-line approach among extreme neoliberals that includes laissez-faire and nationalist competition, there is a degree of realism in the Council that allows them to accept irreversible changes, reject the extreme anti-communist ’roll-back’ position, and show a willingness to accept détente. But there is an (equally) strong determination to maintain a world where US capitalism feels at home. The war in Indochina, the enormous waste with extensive military expenditures, encouragement of the execution of foreign leaders, support for reactionary regimes worldwide, bribes and corruption, and even domestic repression to maintain imperialism abroad, political trials against dissenters, CIA and FBI harassment of radical groups and secret surveillance are all the result of and evidence of imperialism’s destructive nature.” (Laurence H. Shoup, Imperial Brain Trust: The Council on Foreign Relations and United States Foreign Policy, Authors Choice Press, 2004, p. 278.)

CFR’s Ambition for a Global Financial Dictatorship
Both the UN and the IMF have thrown their weight behind proposals to introduce a new currency reserve monetary system to replace the dollar as part of the acceleration towards a global financial dictatorship. ”A UN panel of expert economists pressed on Thursday for a new global currency reserve to replace the chaotic dollar-based system and for the actions of rich countries to be coordinated to stimulate their economies,” reported AFP on March 26, 2009. Furthermore, ”IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn said that discussions about a new global currency reserve to replace the American dollar were ’legitimate’ and could take place ’in the coming months,'” according to the report.

Jeffrey Garten, a CFR member, wrote a piece in London’s Financial Times in 2008 where he called for a ”new global monetary authority” that would have powers to oversee all national financial authorities and all significant global finance companies. ”Even if the US’s massive financial rescue operation succeeds, it should be followed by something even more far-reaching – the establishment of a global monetary authority to oversee markets that have become borderless,” writes Jeffrey Garten, who was Undersecretary of Commerce for International Trade in Clinton’s administration and former dean of Yale School of Management. Before that, Garten served as a managing director at the Blackstone Group and Lehman Brothers on Wall Street and on the White House Council on International Economic Policy in Nixon’s administration and in the political planning staffs formed by Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and Cyrus Vance in Ford and Carter’s administrations.

Citing the current global institutional apparatus’s ”globalization,” a ”philosophical battle,” and a ”vacuum in the middle,” Garten describes his vision for a new monolithic worldwide authority to oversee all economic activity around the world. Here are some of the highlights;

A GMA (global monetary authority) would be a reinsurer or discounter of last resort that would mitigate some of the obligations of central banks. It would inspect the regulatory agencies in national authorities with more teeth than the IMF and monitor the implementation of a limited number of global rules. It would oversee global risks and establish an effective early warning system with more potent alarms than the BIS.

It would act as a ”bankruptcy court” for financial reorganizations of global companies above a certain size. The biggest global finance companies will be forced to register with the GMA and be subject to its monitoring, or be blacklisted. This includes commercial and investment banks, but also state wealth funds, gigantic hedge funds, and private equity firms.

A board for the GMA (Global Monetary Authority) must include central banks not only from the USA, the UK, the Eurozone, and Japan, but also from China, Saudi Arabia, and Brazil. It would be financed through mandatory contributions from all economically capable countries and from insurance premiums issued by global financial companies – both publicly traded, government-owned, and privately owned.

In a conclusion that reeks of Problem, Reaction, Solution, Garten adds, ”In terms of American and international politics, a global monetary authority is probably an idea whose time has not yet come. This may change as today’s crisis evolves.”

What he describes is nothing less than the cross-border operation of a global financial dictatorship and the coercion of nations and companies to register and follow strict surveillance and obey the same rules. The implementation of such a system would constitute total interventionism and the absolute final nail in the coffin for the free market. Garten’s demand for a GMA echoes the words in a text published in the FT in June by CFR member Timothy Geithner, chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Having recently attended the Bilderberg conference in Chantilly, Virginia, Geithner calls for a globalized banking system with ”appropriate capital and liquidity requirements”.

The CFR has for years promoted a global dictatorship and its world currency. In the May/June 2007 issue of the New York Council on Foreign Relations’ news journal Foreign Affairs, an open demand was published to end the control of sovereign nation-states over their own currency. In an article signed by Benn Steil, Director of International Economics at the CFR, titled ”The End of National Currency,” the CFR effectively endorsed the end of economic sovereignty and demanded the total capitulation of all nations to it, rich and poor, transitioning to unrestrained globalization. In the paper, Steil argued that the solution to currency crises ”is not to return to a mythical past of monetary sovereignty, with governments controlling local interests and exchange rates in blissful ignorance of the rest of the world. Governments must relinquish the fatal notion that national identity requires control over the money used on their territory. National currencies and global markets simply do not mix; together they form a lethal brew of currency crises and geopolitical tensions and provide clear pretexts for damaging protectionism. To globalize safely, countries should abandon monetary nationalism and dismantle unwanted currencies that are the source of much of today’s instability.”

If there were any doubts that Steil was calling for a new form of super-imperialistic dominance in a post-Westphalian, post-sovereign nation-state type of utopian world, he made this point clear by asserting that the latter part of the 19th century, leading into World War I, was the peak of earlier globalization, precisely the period when the British Empire was at its zenith. ”The lessons of gold-based globalization during the 19th century must simply be learned,” Steil wrote: ”… Since economic development beyond globalization is no longer possible, countries should abandon monetary nationalism. Governments should replace national currencies with the dollar or the euro, or, in the case of Asia, collaborate to produce a new multinational currency over a comparatively large and economically diverse area…. Most of the world’s smaller and poorer countries would clearly be better off unilaterally adopting the dollar or the euro, which would enable their safe and rapid integration into global financial markets. Latin American countries should dollarize, Eastern European countries and Turkey, euroize.” Steil’s final warning: If governments, including the United States, do not heed his advice, ”the market may privatize money on its own.”

As Georgetown professor and CFR historian Carroll Quigley noted in Tragedy and Hope, the goal of banking families and their associates is ”nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole… controlled in a feudal fashion by the world’s central banks acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.”

Former Clinton supporter Dick Morris, a political advisor in the White House after Clinton’s election as president in 1992, told Sean Hannity on Fox News in March 2009 that ’A big thing will happen in London at this G20 meeting, and then they hide it, they camouflage it, they don’t talk about it. The coordination of international regulation, i.e., What they are going to do is in effect subject our Fed [Federal Reserve] and our SEC [Securities and Exchange Commission] to the control of the IMF [International Monetary Fund]. That’s what’s on the agenda. They call it coordination of regulation. What it really is is subjugating the American economy to international regulation. Those people who have been screaming, ”Oh, the UN is going to take over global government, have been dismissed as crazy. But now it turns out they were right. It’s happening right now.” Sean Hannity interjects, saying ”Those conspiracy theorists have been saying this for years… you’re not wrong.” It’s the ”international regulations for financial institutions” we need to worry about, warns Dick Morris. It will happen under ”IMF control… Remember, the IMF is run by Europeans and backed by Americans.” As intended by our rulers, a global ”super currency” will ultimately require a world government. Morris primarily accuses the Europeans of this, and he is only partially right – it’s a ploy long conceived by international bankers primarily based in Europe and the UK and backed, as Morris admits, by the American financial elite.

The Ambition of the CFR for a World Government
CFR aims to submerge the independence and national sovereignty of the USA in an all-powerful one-world government.” – Admiral Chester Ward, former member of the CFR and Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy in his book ”Kissinger on the Couch,” 1974.

The Special Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations was an investigative committee of the U.S. House of Representatives between 1952 and 1954. The committee was initially created by House Resolution 561 during the 82nd Congress. The Reece Committee investigated tax-exempt foundations such as Rockefeller, Ford, and Carnegie. The committee’s report found that:

”In the international field, foundations, and an interlock of some of them with certain intermediary organizations, have exerted a substantial influence upon our foreign policy and upon public education in international affairs. This has been accomplished by extensive propaganda, by supplying executive personnel and advisors to the government, by controlling much research in this area through the power of the purse. The net result of these combined efforts has been to promote ’internationalism’ in a particular sense—a form directed toward ’world government’ and a derogation of American ’nationalism.'”

They noted that the major foundations ”have actively supported attacks on our social and governmental system and have financed the promotion of socialism and collectivist ideas.” The Reece Committee clearly stated that the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) was ”virtually an agency of the United States Government” and that their ”publications are not objective, but are directed overwhelmingly at promoting the globalist ideology.”

In 1959, ”The Western World in Crisis” by James Warburg was published, in which he proclaimed, ”…a world order without world law is an anachronism… A world that fails to establish the rule of law over the nation-states cannot long survive. We are living in a perilous transition period from an era of wholly sovereign nation-states to an era of world government.” James Warburg was a member of the CFR and founder of the United World Federalists. He was also FDR’s financial advisor and the son of Paul Warburg, who authored the Federal Reserve Act.

In 1960, Elmo Roper (CFR), financial head of the Atlantic Union Committee, delivered a speech and wrote a brochure both titled ”The Goal is World Government.” In his call for global governance, Roper stated: ”It is clear that the first step toward world government cannot be completed until we have advanced on the four fronts: the economic, the military, the political, and the social.”

The idea of a world government has always been an aspiration patiently pursued by the elites. The precursor to their dream of a world government was called the League of Nations (LoN). Established in 1919 under the Treaty of Versailles to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security in the world, many felt this was essential as the world had just experienced its first world war. The LoN paved the way for the modern United Nations (UN).

The organization known as the UN was indeed officially established with the signing of the UN Charter by representatives from 50 nations meeting in San Francisco on June 26, 1945. However, this symbolic event was the culmination of years of planning by a private, high-level policy group that had effectively gained control of American foreign policy during the Roosevelt era. Immediately after entering the war, that organization, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), sowed the idea of a world-governing body for ”peace.”

J.B. Matthews, former chief investigator for the House Committee on Un-American Activities, challenged ”the illusion that the UN is an instrument of peace… It could be no more than a cruel hoax if it had been organized from hell for the single purpose of assisting and abetting the downfall of the United States.”

Upon the initiative of the State Department, the 26 nations at war with the Axis powers came together in January 1942, calling themselves the United Nations. Historian Clarence Carson observed:

”…the [UN] did not in any way constitute a form of World Government and that neither the Senate nor the American people need worry that the United Nations or any of its agencies would interfere with US national sovereignty or the domestic policies of the American people.”

The ink on the UN Charter had barely dried when the charter for UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) was presented in London in November 1945. UNESCO absorbed and expanded the Paris-based International Institute for Intellectual Cooperation, which was a remnant of the League of Nations. Julian Huxley was the primary driving force behind UNESCO and served as its first Director-General. UNESCO’s main function is laid out in its charter, UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy: ”Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must be constructed.” UNESCO was created to construct a worldwide educational program to prepare the world for global governance. UNESCO advisor, Bertrand Russell, wrote for the UNESCO journal, The Impact of Science on Society: ”Any government that has been in control of education for a whole generation will be able to guide its subjects securely without the need for armies or police forces…” The National Education Association was a major advocate for UNESCO. In a 1942 article in the NEA journal, written by Joy Elmer Morgan, the NEA called for ”…certain world authorities for administration such as: a police force; an educational board…” A year later in London, the Conference of Allied Ministers of Education called for the need for a United Nations Education Bureau. UNESCO became the world’s education board.

Huxley believed the world needed a single, global government. He saw UNESCO as an instrument to ”contribute to the rapid and satisfactory realization of the process.” He described UNESCO’s philosophy as global, scientific humanism. He said: ”Political unification in some form of world government will be required for the ultimate achievement” of the next step in social development. From the start, UNESCO has designed programs to capture youth at as early an age as possible to initiate the education process.

William Benton, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, told one of UNESCO’s meetings in 1946:

”We are at the beginning of a long process of breaking down the walls of national sovereignty. UNESCO must be the pioneer.”

UNESCO’s view on national sovereignty was no secret:

”As long as the child breathes the poisoned air of nationalism, education in world-mindedness can only produce rather precarious results. As we have pointed out, it is frequently the family that infects the child with extreme nationalism. The school should therefore use the means described earlier to combat family attitudes that favor chauvinism… We must presently in nationalism identify the major obstacles to the development of world-mindedness.” (UNESCO publication No. 356, In the Classroom: Toward World Understanding (Paris: Georges Lang, 1949) p. 58).

The precursor to the UN was the League of Nations, an organization designed under similar circumstances during the First World War and established in 1919 in accordance with the Treaty of Versailles. The United Nations (UN) replaced it after the end of the war and inherited a number of agencies and organizations founded by the League. Lionel Curtis (one of the leaders of the Round Table Movement which became RIIA and CFR) wished that the League of Nations would become a world government with teeth and power and wrote articles with H.G. Wells urging this.

Carroll Quigley writes about Curtis:

”Lionel Curtis is one of the most important members of the Milner Group, or as a member of the group expressed it to me, he is the group’s Fons et Origo. This may sound like an extravagant statement, but what happened a generation later can be made a powerful defense of what Curtis claimed should be done with the British Empire. I will give here just two recent examples of this. In 1911, Curtis decided that the name of His Majesty’s possessions must be changed from ”British Empire” to ”Commonwealth”. This was officially implemented in 1948. Again, around 1911, Curtis decided that India must be given full self-government as quickly as conditions allow. This was carried out in 1947. As we shall see, these are not just converging events, since Curtis, working behind the scenes, has been one of the main architects behind the current Commonwealth.”

Several years earlier than UNESCO, Lionel Curtis made it clear in his book Civitas Dei: The Commonwealth of God, 1938, that the crushing of national sovereignty was on the agenda:

”We are now learning what national sovereignty means when carried to its practical conclusion in a highly mechanized world. Political thinkers are beginning to say, almost in unison, that the purpose of civilization is lost unless nation-states agree to part with some of their sovereignty. … If a government voluntarily surrenders the right to the League of Nations to issue orders to its own subjects over the head of the government, it has welded its sovereignty with that of the League of Nations and is no longer sovereign. Some thinkers, and even some statesmen, who see where the principle of national sovereignty leads have proposed practical measures to limit it. They advocate that the League of Nations must have its own ’police,’ a navy, an army, and a sufficiently strong air force to enforce the League’s will against a recalcitrant member, just as a national government has police to enforce its laws against rebellious citizens. But they shrink back from the necessary consequence of their proposal. A League police must be recruited. From the subjects who owe allegiance to the states comprising the League, from most if not all of them. Its members must all vow to obey, to give their lives if necessary, to the League of Nations, not the government of the nation-state to which they belong, should the two have conflicting interests. In any case, these men’s undivided devotion must be transferred from the national states to the League.”

The UN and UNESCO were created in the wake of the worst bloodbath of war the world had ever seen. Conditioned by a constant stream of propaganda produced by the CFR in the USA, and the Royal Institute of International Affairs in Europe, the movement for world governance was accepted and allowed to proceed. Julian Huxley realized, however, that for long-term success, a worldwide constituency needed to be developed. In 1948, Huxley and his long-time colleague, Max Nicholson, both involved in the Royal Institute of International Affairs, created the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

IUCN drew much of its leadership, funding, and membership from the 50-year-old British Fauna and Flora Preservation Society (FFPS). Sir Peter Scott, chairman of the FFPS, drafted the IUCN’s charter and led one of its most important commissions. This non-governmental organization (NGO) was instrumental in the founding of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in 1961 and the World Resources Institute (WRI) in 1982. These three NGOs are to the UN system what the CFR was to Franklin Roosevelt, or what Edward House was to Woodrow Wilson. These three NGOs have become part of the driving forces behind the emergence of global governance.

Winston Churchill, one of the founders of the UN, delivered a speech in 1947 in which, in line with UN Secretary-General Alger Hiss’s vision, he declared that his desire was for an all-dominant world government to be built:

”The ultimate goal to which we must strive is the creation of an authoritative, all-dominant world order. Until an effective world government can be established and come into operation, the prospects for peace and progress are dark and uncertain. Without a united Europe, there are no secure prospects for a world government. It is a suitable and inevitable step towards the fulfillment of this ideal” – Churchill Speaks, 1897-1963: Collected Speeches in Peace and War (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1980), p. 913. Speech titled ”United Europe,” May 14, 1947, Albert Hall, London, UK.)

Another personality within the UN who made his voice heard for this purpose was Frank Notestein, one of the most influential population control activists and demographers of the 20th century. His work led, among other things, to the establishment of demography as an academic discipline. He worked as the first head of the UN’s population division and contributed to the founding of John D. Rockefeller’s Population Council in 1952. He was also a board member of population research at Princeton University. In a paper written by Notestein in 1969 titled ”The Problem of Population Control”, he outlines a strategy to accelerate the pace of depopulation. Notestein admits that economic modernization would ”…automatically bring birth rates down.” However, he continues to state that more drastic measures must be taken to achieve zero population growth because he believes this method would not be fast enough. ”Coercion” and ”the establishment of a totalitarian regime” (his own words) are Notestein’s solutions. (Ed. Hauser, Philip Morris. The Population Dilemma. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 1969. pp. 145 – 166).

The Club of Rome, founded in the 1960s at David Rockefeller’s private estate in Bellagio, Italy, organized conferences such as Conditions of World Order where they discussed plans for the gradual implementation of a world government and were sponsored by the Congress for Cultural Freedom. In the 2007 action report of the Canadian Association for the Club of Rome (CACOR), it was suggested that the Club of Rome should work towards a world society of a superior type, rank, and status. As ”that would make the UN a central world government, interacting with current national governments (minus today’s Security Council).” When Francesco Stipo, director of the Club of Rome in the USA, promoted his book World Federalist Manifesto: Guide to Political Globalization at a National Press Club Luncheon in 2009, he said, ”A world government is the only solution to the world’s problems, such as climate change and the global economic crisis.”

Richard Haass, current chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, spun on this theme in 2006 in his article, State sovereignty must be altered in a globalized era. According to Haass, a world government must be created, and sovereignty eradicated to combat global warming and terrorism, just as the Club of Rome has suggested. ”The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for an era characterized by globalization, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system with either a world government or anarchy.” He further writes, ”The monopoly power once enjoyed by sovereign entities is being eroded. As a result, new mechanisms for regional and global governance that include actors other than states are needed. This is not an argument for giving Microsoft, Amnesty International, or Goldman Sachs seats in the UN General Assembly, but it does mean including representatives from such organizations in regional and global deliberations when they have the capacity to affect whether regional and global challenges are met. Furthermore, states must be prepared to cede some of their sovereignty to global bodies if the international system is to function. Globalization thus means that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality but needs to become weaker. States would do well to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves, as they cannot isolate themselves from what happens elsewhere. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary.”

The Threat of Nuclear War: An Antithesis Leading to a New Synthesis
In 1946, shortly after the last world war, there were two major armies, the Soviet and American. If they had united, no other force could have withstood them. Such a proposal for world government was printed in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists for several months in 1946. In his book ”Has Man A Future?”, Bertrand Russell describes how it developed, first as a proposal composed by David Lilienthal, then in a form developed by Bernard Baruch – an advocate for world government. This ’Baruch Plan’ was discussed in the issues of 1946 and presented to Stalin. By the end of that year, Stalin had rejected it, as it required submission to Washington, and the Cold War had begun. Many of these figures would mention the threat of nuclear war to promote their intentions and goals. Bernard Baruch was one of the most vocal people doing this with his ’Baruch Plan’. Later, these goals were discreetly made into law, State Department publication #7277 – titled ’Freedom from War’, written in 1961 (which corresponds to Public Law 87-297).

Of course, all this was based on deception, as revealed by Major George Racey Jordan, who oversaw Harry Hopkins’ Lend-Lease program, which sent war materials to the Soviet Union during World War II. The American government sent nuclear materials to the Soviet Union during World War II. Major George Racey Jordan was an officer for the UN working at ’UN Depot No. 8, Lend-Lease Division, Newark Airport, Newark, New Jersey, International Section, Air Service Command, Air Corps, US Army.’ Jordan was responsible for shipping American war materials to Russia during World War II. He testified that he was instructed by the White House and the State Department to deliver parts of the atomic bomb to the Soviet Union – while the nation was concerned that Russia had stolen the bomb’s secrets. Jordan was meticulous in recording everything he did and witnessed in his diary, filled with dates, ship manifests, and names of pilots who flew missions. A congressional committee with Donald T. Appell, a former FBI agent and special investigator for the Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC), investigating the matter, dispelled any doubts that his notes on the shipments of American war materials, secretive documents on industrial and war development, uranium (uranium oxide and uran nitrate), and heavy water (deuterium oxide) were backed by facts.

As British-born economist and historian Antony C. Sutton pointed out, there continued to be massive support for the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War. Sutton noted the extent of this support in testimony before Subcommittee VII of the platform committee for the Republican Party in Miami Beach, Florida, on August 15, 1972:

”In a few words: there is no such thing as Soviet technology. Almost everything – perhaps 90-95 percent – came directly or indirectly from the USA and its allies. In fact, the USA and NATO members have built the Soviet Union. Its industry and its military capacity. This massive construction job has taken 50 years. Since the 1917 revolution. It has been done through trade and sale of plants, equipment, and technical assistance.”

Alan H. Belmont (former Assistant Director For Domestic Intelligence – FBI) allowed the publication of the following volumes by Dr. Sutton, at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University around 1968-1973:

Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development.1917-1930 [Publication 76]
Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development 1930-1945 [Publication 90]
Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development 1945-1965 [Publication 113]

The statement by Joseph Stalin, as reported by W. Averell Harriman to the U.S. State Department in June 1944, acknowledges the significant role played by the United States in supporting Soviet industrial development before and during the war. Stalin’s statement reads:

”Stalin praised the assistance provided by the United States to Soviet industry before and during the war. He stated that about two-thirds of the major industrial enterprises in the Soviet Union had been built with American help and technical assistance.” (Source: US State Dept Decimal File, 033.1161 Johnston, Eric/6-3044: Telegram June 30, 1944)

An interesting letter regarding how W. Averell Harriman sneaked illegal projects past the U.S. government in 1925, when he invested millions in developing Soviet manganese deposits, which Evan E. Young advised his high-ranking colleagues in the State Department against investigating, demonstrated a powerlessness on the part of the State Department, that they could not challenge the power behind the scenes.” (How the Order Creates War and Revolution, Antony C. Sutton, p. 58.)

Political scientist Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote: ”For impressive evidence of the West’s participation in the early phase of the Soviet Union’s economic growth, see Antony C. Sutton’s Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development: 1917 — 1930, which claims that ’the Soviet Union’s economic development from 1917-1930 was mainly due to Western technical support’ (p. 283), and that ’at least 95 percent of the industrial structure received this support.'” (p. 348). Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era (New York: Viking Press; 1970).

H. G. Wells, in his book The Shape of Things to Come: the Ultimate Revolution, 1933, regarding the involvement of one-worlders in Russia:

”The method of treaty-making {i.e., international agreements} and a modus vivendi was already in operation regarding Russia. It was indeed difficult to say whether the Communist Party or the modern state movement had control, so far had assimilation gone.” (Wells called his one-world movement the modern state movement).

The Baruch Plan was not implemented directly, but instead was carried out in a Fabian style. 1961 – The U.S. State Department issues a plan to disarm all nations and arm the UN. State Department Publication #7277 titled Freedom from War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World. It provides a three-step plan to disarm all nations and arm the UN with the final step where ”no state shall have military power to challenge the UN’s progressively enhanced peacekeeping force.” Publication #7277 (which corresponds to Public Law 87-297) states the following:

Page 10:

”The manufacture of armaments shall be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the UN peace force and those required to maintain internal order. All other weapons shall be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes.”

It is also called (p. 11):

”The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their re-establishment in any form whatsoever other than those required to preserve internal order and for contributions to the UN peace force”

It is also called (p. 12):

”The establishment and effective operation of an international disarmament organization within the framework of the United Nations to ensure compliance with all disarmament obligations.”

This was later updated in a document called Blueprint for the Peace Race.

This becomes particularly disturbing when considering the information published in Sutton’s Hoover Institution studies, which show that this ”threat” received constant assistance and was built to function as an antithesis, leading to a new synthesis. Later, many of these figures would propose that gradual regionalization and embedding nations in complex networks of international relations would be preferable to simply announcing a world government governed by the UN.

Former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Gardner, who wrote an article in Foreign Affairs in April 1974 titled ”The Hard Road to World Order,” provided us with insight into how the world state should be built:

The article ”Hard Road” began with CFR member Richard Gardner lamenting that like-minded internationalists had failed to achieve what he called ”instant world government.” He proposed a new, more effective path to the establishment of an all-powerful global superstate, stating: ”In short, the ’house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great ’booming, buzzing confusion,’ to use William James’ famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault. The hopeful aspect of the present situation is that even as nations resist appeals for ’world government’ and ’surrender of sovereignty,’ technical, economic, and political interests are forcing them to establish more and more elaborate international networks to cope with their independence.”

And in modern times, on one level, Zbigniew Brzezinski, a professor of American foreign policy and advisor to several U.S. presidents, as well as a co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, wrote in ”The Grand Chessboard” about how Eurasian powers must be marginalized. On another level, he wrote about how the American war machine would force the process of globalization on defiant nations with the aim of standardizing them into a global system, while at the same time, the U.S. and other Western countries would be enmeshed in a web of international agreements forming the embryo of world government, and ultimately, the American empire would pave the way for a revitalized UN with the tools to take the lead.

The ruling class’s establishment of global governance with the CFR and BIS at the forefront: Part 2 – Research on the history of the Anglo-American empire