The glob­al­ists be­hind the Amer­i­can Em­pire

Westside Eagle-Observer - - OPINION - By Harold Pease, Ph.D.

For most of a hun­dred years, no can­di­date for pres­i­dent ob­tained of­fice with­out Coun­cil on For­eign Re­la­tions ap­proval. In time, most Amer­i­cans came to re­al­ize that some­thing was work­ing be­hind the scenes with­out their in­ter­ests as first con­sid­er­a­tion and that both ma­jor po­lit­i­cal par­ties re­flected this some­thing.

Ini­tially, no one could put their fin­ger on it, so generic names like in­ter­na­tion­al­ism, world gov­ern­ment, east­ern es­tab­lish­ment, new world order and world order came and went over the decades, each re­placed when rec­og­nized as be­ing merely a syn­onym for the un­pop­u­lar world-gov­ern­ment phi­los­o­phy. Glob­al­ism is the fa­vorite term to­day, but es­tab­lish­ment is still used as it came to have a dou­ble mean­ing, long-term ser­vice as well as world gov­ern­ment.

The es­tab­lish­ment, in the in­formed sense, is the moneyed elite ca­pa­ble of bring­ing to can­di­dates the mil­lions of dol­lars that are needed to win if they can ra­tio­nal­ize sell­ing their souls to the Amer­i­can Em­pire wanted by the glob­al­ist. Their peo­ple have in­fil­trated both po­lit­i­cal par­ties and they own the ma­jor me­dia out­lets. Thus their in­flu­ence over pres­i­den­tial can­di­dates for more than a hun­dred years is never re­ally cov­ered, but all can­di­dates know of their in­flu­ence and power.

All pres­i­dents dat­ing back to Her­bert Hoover have ei­ther been mem­bers of or had an ap­prov­ing re­la­tion­ship with the Coun­cil on For­eign Re­la­tions housed in New York City. This is the real es­tab­lish­ment. When a pres­i­dent is not a mem­ber him­self, his vice pres­i­dent is. Barack Obama, although sup­ported by the CFR, wasn’t on its pub­lished mem­ber­ship list; but Joe Bi­den was. Since the late 1920s, vir­tu­ally all of our sec­re­taries of state, United Na­tions am­bas­sadors and am­bas­sadors to Rus­sia and China have been mem­bers of this Wall Street spe­cial in­ter­est group. More­over, CFR mem­bers largely filled the ma­jor­ity of pres­i­den­tial cab­i­nets through 2016.

Even be­fore the CFR was or­ga­nized for­mally, Pres­i­dent Woodrow Wil­son, in his book, The New Free­dom (1913), wrote of his ex­pe­ri­ence with this hid­den force. He wrote: “Since I en­tered pol­i­tics, I have chiefly had men’s views con­fided to me pri­vately. Some of the big­gest men in the United States in the field of com­merce and man­u­fac­ture are afraid of some­body, are afraid of some­thing. They know that there is a power some­where so or­ga­nized, so sub­tle, so watch­ful, so in­ter­locked, so com­plete, so per­va­sive that they had bet­ter not speak above their breath when they speak in con­dem­na­tion of it.”

No spe­cial in­ter­est group has had more im­pact on for­eign pol­icy than the CFR the last 100 years, lead­ing many to ques­tion if we have but one po­lit­i­cal party in the United States with two arms. This is why there has been lit­tle dif­fer­ence in for­eign pol­icy be­tween Demo­crat and Repub­li­can pres­i­dents. They got their ad­vis­ers from the same Wall Street spe­cial in­ter­est group, the CFR. They

all sup­ported ex­ten­sive for­eign aid, polic­ing the world with more than 800 mil­i­tary bases in other lands, and con­tin­ual wars with­out dec­la­ra­tion or pre-es­tab­lished end. They all sup­ported in­ter­na­tional trade agree­ments that en­hanced the power of the United Na­tions over the U.S. and ex­ported jobs for­merly held by Amer­i­cans. They all sup­ported the bank bailouts and their man­age­ment of the money supply through the bankers’ pri­vate Fed­eral Re­serve Bank and op­posed it be­ing au­dited. They all sup­ported prob­lem-solv­ing on the fed­eral or in­ter­na­tional level rather than the state or county lev­els.

No­table po­lit­i­cal sci­en­tist Lester Mil­braith ob­served, “The in­flu­ence of the CFR through­out gov­ern­ment is so per­va­sive that it is dif­fi­cult to dis­tin­guish the CFR from gov­ern­ment pro­grams” (Do­mes­tic Sources of For­eign Pol­icy, p. 247).

Prom­i­nent po­lit­i­cal sci­en­tist Thomas R. Dye wrote, “The his­tory of CFR pol­icy ac­com­plish­ments is daz­zling” then traced in de­tail its dom­i­nat­ing role in for­eign pol­icy ac­com­plish­ment from the 1920s through the Ge­orge Bush ad­min­is­tra­tion from its own boasts of suc­cess in Coun­cil on For­eign Re­la­tions An­nual Re­ports (Who’s Run­ning Amer­ica? The Bush Restora­tion, p. 188).

What is wrong with this “se­cret com­bi­na­tion” of high fi­nance, mil­i­tary ad­ven­tur­ism, ben­e­fit­ing me­dia and power-lust­ing politi­cians as­sem­bled in New York City to pro­mote glob­al­ism? The Reece Con­gres­sional Com­mit­tee said it best when it noted that its pro­duc­tions “are not ob­jec­tive but are directed over­whelm­ingly at pro­mot­ing the glob­al­ism con­cept.” How pow­er­ful was it by the time Congress first dis­cov­ered its in­flu­ence in 1954? It had come, they wrote, “to be in essence an agency of the United States gov­ern­ment, no doubt car­ry­ing its in­ter­na­tion­al­ist bias with it” (pp. 176-177).

Pol­i­tics ap­pears to be di­vided be­tween two war­ring po­lit­i­cal par­ties but, be­cause of the same-shared source of di­rec­tion and pool of ad­vis­ers, it is hard to be­lieve that, at the top, we are re­ally di­vided at all. Pres­i­dents have far more com­mon­al­ity and bi­par­ti­san­ship than has been por­trayed in the es­tab­lish­ment’s me­dia.

Again, the prin­ci­pal or­ga­ni­za­tion of the moneyed es­tab­lish­ment, the CFR, is deeply em­bed­ded in both po­lit­i­cal par­ties and it owns the ma­jor me­dia out­lets, which de­nies cov­er­age to com­pet­ing po­lit­i­cal par­ties and el­e­vates its sym­pa­thetic can­di­dates through the nom­i­nat­ing process of each party. Amer­i­cans then get to choose which CFR-ap­proved can­di­date they pre­fer. It may be the great­est show in Amer­ica. We call it a free elec­tion, but the op­tions the CFR man­ages. For a hun­dred years, no can­di­date for pres­i­dent ob­tained of­fice with­out CFR ap­proval. For the mo­ment, its power seems to be per­ma­nent.

Harold Pease, Ph.D., is a syn­di­cated colum­nist and an ex­pert on the United States Con­sti­tu­tion. Opin­ions ex­pressed are those of the au­thor.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.