NationStates Jolt Archive

Regardless of which political party is in office, the same people shape our foreign policy.

Example: When CFR member Gerald Ford (CFR member Nixon's successor) and his secretary of state Henry Kissinger, Nelson Rockefeller's protege', lost the '76 election, they were replaced by CFR members Jimmy Carter and Special Assistant for National Security Affairs Zbigniew Brzezinski, David Rockefeller's protege'.

1)Every President since Dwight D. Eisenhower- with the exceptions of Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Regean, and George W. Bush- has been a member of the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations).

2)Almost every secretary of state for the past fifty years has been a member: George Marshall, Dean Acheson, John Foster Dulles, Dean Rusk, William Rogers, Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance, George Schulz, Warren Christopher, Madaleine Albright, and Colin Powell.

3)Vice-Presidents Hubert Humphrey, Nelson Rockefeller, Walter Mondale, and Dick Cheney were/are all CFR members.

4)Of the Democratic candidates this year, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, Wesley Clark, and Richard Gephardt are all members.

5)Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is a former member. George F. Kennan- the man who formulated the containment policy-is a member. Newt Gingrich is a member.

6)So is William F. Buckley. Dan Rather, Barbara Walters, Jim Lehrer, Tom Brokaw, and scores of other reporters and journalists are members.

7)Michael Eisner, CEO of Disney, is a member, as are dozens of other CEOs and presidents of big-name companies.

8)Every CIA director in history has been a member.

9)Alan Greenspan is a member.

10)Presidential candidates Thomas Dewey, Adlai Stevenson, George McGovern, and Jesse Jackson are/were members.

11)Senator John McCain is a member, as are a few other senators, of both political parties. So are numerous congressmen.

12)Even some of our military leaders have been members: Matthew Ridgway, William Westmoreland, Andrew Goodpaster, Lyman Lemnitzer, Maxwell Taylor, and more than few members (and even chairmen) of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

13)Condoleeza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, Robert McNamara, Strobe Talbott, C. Douglas Dillon, Winston Lord, John McCloy, Melvin Laird, Walt Rostow, William and McGeorge Bundy, W. Averell Harriman, Elliott Richardson, Ellsworth Bunker, Sol Linowitz, Edward Lansdale, Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., Caspar Weinberger, Alger Hiss, and literally hundreds of other big-name government people have been members.

14)Almost every one of our foreign ambassadors is a member.

15)Every President for the past fifty years has had hundreds of members in his administration.

Why do you keep posting the same thing?

Why do you keep posting the same thing?

Yeah, sorry, but I just want to ensure that as many people as possible read this.

What's the CFR?

What's the CFR?

Council on Foreign Relations. Would you like a brief history?

too many words, not enough paragraphs
nuff said

Council on Foreign Relations. Would you like a brief history?
Why not--although I have to admit that I don't find it unusual that people interested in and working in the fields of diplomacy, espionage, international relations and journalism would be members of a group with that name.

bump

Yeah, sorry, but I just want to ensure that as many people as possible read this.

Yeah, okay, I can understand that. However, now that you have your own thread on the topic, please don't post any new thread with it if you don't mind. I mean if you want to again in a few weeks, sure. You know what I mean :)

Thanks!
Stephanie.
Game Moderator

Here's their mission statement:

Founded in 1921, the Council on Foreign Relations is an independent, national membership organization and a nonpartisan center for scholars dedicated to producing and disseminating ideas so that individual and corporate members, as well as policymakers, journalists, students, and interested citizens in the United States and other countries, can better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other governments. The Council, which is headquartered in New York with an office in Washington, DC, does this by:

Convening meetings in New York, Washington and in other select American cities where senior government officials, global leaders, and prominent thinkers come together with Council members to debate and discuss the major foreign policy issues of our time;

Conducting a wide-ranging studies program where Council fellows produce articles and books that analyze foreign policy issues and make concrete policy recommendations;

Publishing Foreign Affairs, the preeminent journal covering international affairs and U.S. foreign policy;

Maintaining a diverse membership, including special programs to foster interest and expertise in the next generation of foreign policy leaders;

Sponsoring independent task forces whose reports help set the public foreign policy agenda; and

Providing up-to-date information about the world and U.S. foreign policy on the Council’s website, www.cfr.org.

www.cfr.org

Um, this looks less like an Illuminiati sighting and more like a simple debating society. Might as well claim forigen policy will stay the same because lots of people belong to MENSA.

Why not--although I have to admit that I don't find it unusual that people interested in and working in the fields of diplomacy, espionage, international relations and journalism would be members of a group with that name.

Ever heard of a man named Edward Mandell House? He was a Texan diplomat, whose support of Woodrow Wilson was a major factor in Wilson winning the 1912 election. In 1912, House anonymously published a book called 'Philip Dru: Administrator.' In it, a man named Philip Dru stages a coup d'etat against the government, a bloody civil war results, and Dru assumes the Presidency and becomes a dictator who destroys the constitution and brings forth 'socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx' with a 'spiritual leavening.' The book is poorly written, but House described it as "my political and ethical faith." Many traces of Philip Dru are found in the Wilson Presidency: the income tax, the Federal Reserve, the 17 Amendment, and more.

Let's fastforward to the end of World War I. House, an ardent internationalist and one of the main architects of the Treaty of Versailles, is deeply disappointed when the Senate rejects the League of Nations concept. Shortly afterwards, he meets secretly with a group of fellow diplomats and globalists in the Pratt House in New York City to found the Council on Foreign Relations, the eventual goal of which is world government. Ever since FDR formally invited them (the CFR) into the State Department sometime in the late 30's, they've had complete control of our foreign policy. Virtually every foreign policy 'mistake' and 'blunder' was orchestrated by this group. They control both major political parties (see above list of some of their members), yet they are rarely mentioned by the media (not surprising, as many of them are members themselves) and most Americans have never even heard of the organization.

Yeah, okay, I can understand that. However, now that you have your own thread on the topic, please don't post any new thread with it if you don't mind. I mean if you want to again in a few weeks, sure. You know what I mean :)

Thanks!
Stephanie.
Game Moderator

All right.

What're you talking about? People in the middle east will have to go from burning Bush dummies to burning Kerry dummies.

Roach-Busters, could you possibly edit it into a couple of paragraphs to make it easier to read? I'm not taking the piss or trying to start a ruck with you. It's just that I am interested, but it's very hard to follow at the moment. Cheers. :)

But let me make something crystal clear right now: The vast majority of CFR members are loyal Americans, and many of them would resign at once were they to become aware of its history. Only a very small minority of them are aware of and supportive of its origins and its eventual goal. Nevertheless, regardless of how many are loyal or not, as long as this organization controls our foreign policy, you can expect us to lose more and more of our sovereignty, not to mention human lives, as long as the CFR keeps entangling is in bloody foreign conflicts like Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, Kosovo, or our present quagmire.

Roach-Busters, could you possibly edit it into a couple of paragraphs to make it easier to read? I'm not taking the piss or trying to start a ruck with you. It's just that I am interested, but it's very hard to follow at the moment. Cheers. :)

I'll be happy to. Please give me a moment. :)

Honestly, Roach-Busters, I think you're making correlative logical jumps that don't necessarily follow. You're arguing that since the people involved in these great foreign policy blunders have all been linked to the Council on Foreign Relations, that the CFR is necessarily behind those failures. It's not necessarily so.

To steal a line from Monty Python, "Universal affirmatives can only partially be converted. All of Alma Kogan is dead, but only part of the class of dead people are Alma Kogan." Just because the people behind these particular foreign policy moves are connected to CFR, it doesn't follow that CFR is behind the failures. I'm sure that if you tried to link all of these people, you'd be able to find other ways in which they're connected as well. The CFR is just easier because it's a public group.

Like I said in my original post, it makes perfect sense that people with an interest in and working in the fields of diplomacy, international relations, journalism, espionage, etc. would be part of a think tank that works on those issues.

I'll be happy to. Please give me a moment. :)

Done.

Honestly, Roach-Busters, I think you're making correlative logical jumps that don't necessarily follow. You're arguing that since the people involved in these great foreign policy blunders have all been linked to the Council on Foreign Relations, that the CFR is necessarily behind those failures. It's not necessarily so.

To steal a line from Monty Python, "Universal affirmatives can only partially be converted. All of Alma Kogan is dead, but only part of the class of dead people are Alma Kogan." Just because the people behind these particular foreign policy moves are connected to CFR, it doesn't follow that CFR is behind the failures. I'm sure that if you tried to link all of these people, you'd be able to find other ways in which they're connected as well. The CFR is just easier because it's a public group.

Like I said in my original post, it makes perfect sense that people with an interest in and working in the fields of diplomacy, international relations, journalism, espionage, etc. would be part of a think tank that works on those issues.

I'll return in a moment with a bibliography. Wait here.

But let me make something crystal clear right now: The vast majority of CFR members are loyal Americans, and many of them would resign at once were they to become aware of its history. Only a very small minority of them are aware of and supportive of its origins and its eventual goal. Nevertheless, regardless of how many are loyal or not, as long as this organization controls our foreign policy, you can expect us to lose more and more of our sovereignty, not to mention human lives, as long as the CFR keeps entangling is in bloody foreign conflicts like Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, Kosovo, or our present quagmire.

I'm sorry and no offence, but this is all starting to sound like pure tin foil hat jingoism. I mean, if it's true, then I know where I'm sending my next resume, but so far there seems to just be a lot of speculation with no supporting evidence.

While you are right, core foreign policy cannot be easily changed, however our image as a country could use a little PR and that would come from a new face in office.

I'll be happy to. Please give me a moment. :)
Thanks. :) If you're interested in the murky world of parapolitics you might also be interested in the British American Project for the successor generation. See http://www.tlio.demon.co.uk/bap.htm Be aware that the person behind this document (Tony Gosling) is not always the most reliable of sources, this document sticks to facts, but his other work generally needs doublechecking against other sources before you take it as read.

Ideology and U.S. Foreign Policy by Michael Hunt

Tragedy and Hope by Carroll Quigley

The Invisible Government by Dan Smoot

The Shadows of Power by James Perloff

Washington Post article 'Ruling Class Journalists,' by Richard Harwood, October 30, 1993 issue

The Power Elite by C. Wright Mills

Strobe Talbott's essay “The Birth of the Global Nation,” July 20, 1992 issue of Time

The Intimate Papers of Colonel House by Charles Seymour

Foreign Affairs April 1974 issue

With No Apologies by Barry Goldwater

Thanks. :) If you're interested in the murky world of parapolitics you might also be interested in the British American Project for the successor generation. See http://www.tlio.demon.co.uk/bap.htm Be aware that the person behind this document (Tony Gosling) is not always the most reliable of sources, this document sticks to facts, but his other work generally needs doublechecking against other sources before you take it as read.

Thanks. I'll check it out.

I'm sorry and no offence, but this is all starting to sound like pure tin foil hat jingoism. I mean, if it's true, then I know where I'm sending my next resume, but so far there seems to just be a lot of speculation with no supporting evidence.

No offense taken. I'll admit, it does sound extremely loony and farfetched. However, I have provided a bibliography just now.

bump

You know, arguing that things will never change because a bunch of people in politics all belonging to a large group of people interested in.... politics... seems an odd conclusion to jump to.


It's a little like saying that the political direction of the Supreme Court will never change because they all belong to the Bar Association....

I'm sorry and no offence, but this is all starting to sound like pure tin foil hat jingoism. I mean, if it's true, then I know where I'm sending my next resume, but so far there seems to just be a lot of speculation with no supporting evidence.To be fair to Roach-Busters, that's always going to be a problem with this kind of issue. You're dealing with influential power networks after all. If I said that the British state had foreknowledge of neo-nazi bombings in London, or that MI5 ran disruption campaigns against the anti EU movement over here, it would sound the same. But I can provide fully sourced references for the allegations. (Though not on RBs thread 'cos that wouldn't be fair ;) )

You know, arguing that things will never change because a bunch of people in politics all belonging to a large group of people interested in.... politics... seems an odd conclusion to jump to.


It's a little like saying that the political direction of the Supreme Court will never change because they all belong to the Bar Association....

I'll give an example: The Vietnam War

CFR member Dwight Eisenhower got us in there. CFR members Edward Lansdale and Allen Dulles helped install despot Ngo Dinh Diem as President of South Vietnam, and encouraged the destruction or bribing off of Diem's opposition, the staunchly anti-communist Binh Xuyen pirates and Cao Dai and Hoa Hao religious sects, all three of which were incredibly efficient in keeping the countryside free of communists.

The two main architects of our no-win policies there were General Maxwell Taylor (the man who thought up the policy called 'flexible response') and General William Westmoreland, who commanded the troops from 1964-68.

CFR member John Kennedy greatly expanded our involvement in Vietnam, and CFR member W. Averell Harriman forced Laos's anti-communist, pro-US Prince Boun Oum to negotiate with the communists in 1962 and establish a 'coalition government.'

Secretary of State Dean Rusk (Kennedy and Johnson Administrations) encouraged the President to drastically step up aid and trade with the Soviets, who supplied over 80% of North Vietnam's war supplies. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara issued outdated, ineffective weapons and equipment to our boys, severely limited what the military could and could not do, and always sure our troops were undersupplied.

Ambassadors to South Vietnam Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., Ellsworth Bunker, and others were CFR members.

CFR member Richard Nixon, along with his Secretaries of Defense Melvin Laird and Elliott Richardson (after Laird resigned), Secretaries of State William Rogers and Henry Kissinger (after Rogers resigned) [all CFR] presided over the disastrous Vietnamization program. Kissinger, Lodge, Harriman, Winston Lord (CFR), and others sold out loyal American friends in South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia at the Paris peace talks. Nixon and Kissinger betrayed Taiwan, one of our most loyal allies in history, by recognizing Red China and allowing Taiwan to be booted out of the UN. Nixon also stepped up trade with the Soviets even further.

CFR members Daniel Ellsberg, Mort Halperin, Leslie Gelb, etc. leaked the Pentagon Papers to the CFR-dominated media.

CFR member Bill Clinton and his CFR advisors re-established trade with the butchers of Hanoi, and CFR member John Kerry helped cover-up evidence that many of our POWs are still being held there.

bump

Any other questions?

Come on, guys, I'm bored.

So, you are stating that "nothing will change" in foreign policy, and then point to the fact that EVERY President for decades has belonged to this group - which seems largely to be a debating society or think tank of foreign policy professionals.


Your argument, then, would have to encompase the precept that GW's foreign policy decisions are identical to what Carter's would have been under the same circumstances.


I doubt that you will get a lot of agreement on that idea.

So, you are stating that "nothing will change" in foreign policy, and then point to the fact that EVERY President for decades has belonged to this group - which seems largely to be a debating society or think tank of foreign policy professionals.


Your argument, then, would have to encompase the precept that GW's foreign policy decisions are identical to what Carter's would have been under the same circumstances.


I doubt that you will get a lot of agreement on that idea.

They ARE the same. They both undermine allies, swap away sovereignty, and give aid to our enemies.

So, you are stating that "nothing will change" in foreign policy, and then point to the fact that EVERY President for decades has belonged to this group - which seems largely to be a debating society or think tank of foreign policy professionals.

I've given my response to the idea that the CFR are merely a toothless debating society here: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=344718&page=2. While starting from the same basic premise as RB, as you'll see, I've drawn very different conclusions. (Is it possible to merge the two threads, it seems a bit silly haven't essentially the same discussion going on in both?)