Nothing can excuse a general who takes advantage of the knowledge acquired in the service of his country, to deliver up her frontier and her towns to foreigners. This is a crime reprobated by every principle of religion, morality, and honor. -- Napoleon I.

A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared. -- Cicero.

Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate systematical plan of reducing us to slavery. -- Thomas Jefferson.

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hand, whether of one, a few, or many, or whether hereditary, self-appointed or elected, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. -- James Madison.

Americans Have a Right to Know
About The Council on Foreign Relations

There exists in our nation today a privately run organization with only 3,000 members, several hundred of whom are U.S. government officials. But even though this organization possesses enormous influence over the actions of our national government, most Americans have never heard of it.

This same organization's members dominate our nation's mass media, multinational corporations, the banking industry, colleges and universities, even the military. Yet its domination is unknown to the average citizen.

The members of this small but extremely influential group are responsible for a parade of foreign policy disasters in China, Korea, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Panama, Cuba, and Africa. The group itself has always sought to lead the United States into a one-world socialistic system led by its members and their like-minded associates in other nations.

Shouldn't you know about this organization and what its members are planning for the 1990s?

[This] will introduce you to the Council on Foreign Relations, the little-known New York City-based organization that is both the seat of the liberal Establishment and the main force pushing the United States into the new world order.

CFR Wants One-World Socialism

It was a disappointed but determined group of diplomats from the United States and England who gathered at the Majestic Hotel in Paris on June 17, 1919. Their disappointment stemmed from the U.S. Senate's rejection of America's proposed entry into world government via the League of Nations. But they remained determined to scrap the sovereignty of each of their nations, and all nations.

The leader of the U.S. contingent at this 1919 conference was President Woodrow Wilson's top advisor, Edward Mandell House. In his 1912 book, Philip Dru: Administrator, House laid out a plan for radically altering the American system via what he termed a "conspiracy." The book supplied his ultimate goal: "Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx."

The Paris gathering led to the formation of the British Royal Institute for International Affairs and the American Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). With Rockefeller and Carnegie money backing it, the CFR quickly attracted influential Americans who used their influence to labor for the one-world socialist goal. In 1939, the organization accepted a formal invitation to establish a relationship with the U.S. State Department. That relationship soon grew into CFR domination of the foreign policy of our nation. Practically every Secretary of State for the past 50 years--serving both Democratic and Republican Administrations--has held CFR membership.

Explicitly Stated Goal

As early as 1922, the CFR's prestigious journal, Foreign Affairs, brazenly called for "world government" at the expense of our nation's independence. Repeatedly airing this subversive goal over subsequent years, Foreign Affairs published its most explicit call for the termination of U.S. sovereignty in Richard N. Gardner's1974 article entitled "The Hard Road to World Order."

Admitting that "instant world government" was unfortunately unattainable, the Columbia University professor and former State Department official proceeded to champion "an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece." He also pointed to numerous international groups and causes, each of which he claimed "can produce some remarkable concessions of sovereignty that could not be achieved on an across-the-board basis."

At the time this article appeared, hundreds of CFR members were holding high government posts. Those who were required to swear an oath to support the Constitution of the United States should have immediately resigned from the CFR. None did. Nor were any asked to do so by superiors in government. Instead, the erosion of national independence and the undermining of the Constitution continued.

CFR members like Gardner have historically helped similarly determined world-government advocates achieve power in other nations. It didn't matter to them whether foreign leaders were professed socialists, communists, or whatever, as long as they shared Edward Mandell Houses's goal of "Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx." Marxism was the goal, and that has always meant economic control of the people and world government.

Over the years, therefore, CFR members have carried out the Marxist goals of their organization's founder when they helped one communist thug after another take control of once-free nations. Now that communism is no longer the favored route to socialist world government, CFR members have thrown the weight of their considerable influence behind socialists and "former" communists in Europe, Africa, and elsewhere. But they deserve condemnation for the deaths of hundreds of millions killed by communist rulers, and for the horror of life under communist dictatorships still endured by more than a billion human beings.

Past Treachery

CFR members Owen Lattimore and Dean Acheson engineered the betrayal of Chiang Kai-shek's government and the domination of the Chinese people by the bloodiest murderers the world has ever known.

CFR members Dean Acheson and Dean Rusk arranged for the no-win undeclared war in Korea, the removal from command of General MacArthur who sought victory, and the establishment of Communist Red China as the primary military power in Asia.

CFR members John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles, filling top posts in the Administration of Dwight Eisenhower, betrayed the Hungarian Freedom Fighters in 1956 and knowingly aided communist Fidel Castro in his successful seizure of Cuba in 1958-59.

CFR members McGeorge Bundy, Adlai Stevenson, and John J. McCloy saw to it that the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion was a miserable failure, a huge boost for Castro, and a stunning embarrassment for the United States.

CFR members Dean Rusk, Robert McNamara, and Henry Cabot Lodge pushed the United States into Vietnam and drew up the rules of engagement for our forces that made victory completely unattainable. CFR members Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger continued those policies, presided over America's total defeat in 1973, and allowed South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia to be delivered to communist rulers.

CFR stalwarts Henry Kissinger, Ellsworth Bunker, and Sol Linowitz arranged (with Senate approval) in 1978 to give away the U.S. canal in Panama to a Marxist dictatorship and to sweeten the incredible deal with a gift of $400 million to take it.

CFR leaders Zbigniew Brzezinski, Cyrus Vance, and Warren Christopher undermined strong U.S. allies in Nicaragua and Iran during the 1970s and helped anti-American and Marxist leaders to power.

CFR members George Shultz, William J. Casey, and Malcolm Baldrige, during the 1980s, continued the policy of supplying U.S. aid which kept communists in power in Poland, Romania, China, and the Soviet Union. These same individuals did all they could to assist and dignify the Marxists in El Salvador, Nicaragua, and South Africa. Wherever communist regimes failed, they sent more U.S. aid to the socialists and one-worlders who came to power.

CFR leaders in the Administration of CFR veteran George Bush continued to undermine the government of South Africa until it fell into the hands of Marxist Nelson Mandela.

CFR veteran George Bush deliberately avoided the U.S. Congress and went to the United Nations for authorization to unleash American military forces against Iraq in 1991. He pointedly stated that his goal was a "new world order...a United Nations that performs as envisioned by its founders." The UN's founders, however, included 43 current or future members of the CFR. A leader of the U.S. delegation and the secretary general of the UN's founding conference in 1945 was future CFR member and secret communist Alger Hiss.

CFR member Bill Clinton has followed the Marxist game plan called for by Edward Mandell House by crusading for socialized medicine, an end to private ownership of firearms, and economic unions preceding world government through NAFTA and GATT. President Clinton has also embarked on a deliberate program, most notably via his April 1994 Presidential Decision Directive 25, which urges turning over control of U.S. military forces to the United Nations.

Destroying Checks and Balances

Americans have always been assured that tyranny cannot be established in our nation because of our Constitution's brilliant system of checks and balances. In a round-robin way, each of the three branches of government has the power to check and limit the activities of the other two. This feature of the Constitution did not materialize by chance. In the Federalist Papers, James Madison wrote:

 "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hand, whether of one, a few, or many, or whether hereditary, self-appointed or elected, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

But through its members, the CFR is amassing exactly the kind of tyrannical power Madison feared.

The Executive Branch is led by CFR member Bill Clinton. His top appointees include CFR members Warren Christopher, W. Anthony Lake, Bruce Babbitt, Henry Cisneros, Lloyd Bentsen, Donna Shalala, R. James Woolsey, Madeleine Albright, Alice Rivlin, Strobe Talbott, and a host of others.

The Legislative Branch's Senate has been led by CFR members George Mitchell (the Majority Leader until he retired), Patrick Moynihan, John D. Rockefeller IV, John Chafee, Harris Wolford, Christopher Dodd, Larry Pressler, Bob Graham, William Cohen, Claiborne Pell, and others. The three most important officers of the House of Representatives are CFR members: Speaker Thomas Foley, Majority Leader Richard Gephardt, and Minority Leader Newt Gingrich. In addition, there are more than a dozen other members of the CFR serving in the House.

The Judicial Branch consists of the Supreme Court and all federal district and appeals courts. Of the nine justices of the nation's highest court, three are CFR members: Sandra Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen G. Breyer.

Checks and balances? The CFR doesn't worry about them at all. But every American should carefully consider James Madison's warning.

Grip on the Mass Media

Why are Americans unaware of the enormous clout possessed by the CFR? How can it be that an organization formed to undo the American Dream and lead this nation into a one-world Marxist nightmare can achieve such a controlling influence without the people knowing about it? Why hasn't the supposedly tough and courageous mass media informed the people about this subversive takeover?

The answer, very simply, is that the CFR dominates the mass media, which only rarely reports anything about the organization. The names of hundreds of media executives and journalists can be found on the CFR membership roster. On October 30, 1993, Washington Post columnist Richard Harwood detailed the CFR's domination of his own profession in his column entitled "Ruling Class Journalists." While never condemning what he was reporting and likely steering ambitious individuals toward the Council, Harwood characterized CFR members as "the nearest thing we have to a ruling establishment in the United States." He wrote:

In the past 15 years, council directors have included Hedley Donovan of Time Inc., Elizabeth Drew of the New Yorker, Philip Geyelin of The Washing Post, Karen Elliot House of the Wall Street Journal, and Strobe Talbott of Time magazine, who is now President Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State. The editorial page editor, deputy editorial page editor, executive editor, managing editor, foreign editor, national affairs editor, business and financial editor and various writers as well as Katharine Graham, the paper's principal owner, represent The Washing Post in the council's membership. The executive editor, managing editor and foreign editor of the New York Times are members, along with the executives of such other large newspapers as the Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times, the weekly news magazines, network television executives and celebrities--Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw and Jim Lehrer, for example--and various columnists, among them Charles Krauthammer, William Buckley, George Will and Jim Hoagland.

Americans who wish to be well-informed must seek better sources and sounder perspective such as can be found in The New American magazine. Relying on popular newspapers, magazines, and radio/television networks is asking to be programmed by the Establishment.

Secret Modus Operandi

The Council repeatedly denies that it sets policy for our nation. Yet, while discussing our nation's changing foreign policy, CFR Chairman Peter G. Peterson stated in the organization's 1989 Annual Report that "the Board of Directors and the staff of the Council have decided that this institution should play a leadership role in defining these new foreign policy agenda."

Our question is simply: How can an organization define an agenda for the nation without taking a stand or advocating a policy? The answer is that it can't. Any claim from the CFR that it is merely a debating forum open to all ideas is absurd. Even Richard Harwood knows this. In his Washington Post article mentioned previously, he wrote that the CFR journalists he listed "do not merely analyze and interpret foreign policy; they help make it."

The actual content of meetings held at the group's headquarters and elsewhere remains a closely guarded secret. According to CFR bylaws, it is an "express condition of membership" that members refrain from disclosing in any way what goes on at Council meetings. Any action contravening this rule "may be regarded by the Board of Directors in its sole discretion as ground for termination or suspension of membership."

Yet, cabinet officials, members of Congress, high-ranking military officers, and other government officials repeatedly participate at CFR functions. Such "confidential" gatherings under the aegis of a private organization (especially one founded by an individual whose goal was "Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx") are totally inconsistent with proper conduct in a free country.

No CFR member is ever directly instructed to hold any particular view. Instead, government officials and media personalities supply important respectability for favored positions, and render varying degrees of disdain or contempt for the opposite view. Ambitious politicians, journalists, corporate executives, professors, and others dutifully follow the lead set for them--frequently without ever knowing whose attitude they are parroting. In this way, an agenda is indeed set and policies are established.

As a rule, slight variations on most topics are tolerated, even welcomed. But advocacy of any position outside carefully drawn limits earns scorn and ridicule. For example, discussion about increasing or decreasing U.S. funding for either the United Nations or a variety of foreign aid projects is tolerated, even welcomed. But anyone who calls for U.S. withdrawal from the world body, or who recommends that all foreign aid be terminated, jeopardizes his or her reputation with the nation's most prestigious power brokers.

Those who read CFR publications and study the editorial stance of CFR-controlled media organs know exactly which are the favored attitudes. The CFR and several like-minded groups can be expected to support the following:

1. More pacts, treaties, and agreements that compromise U.S. sovereignty;

2. Continued praise for and reliance on the United Nations;

3. Piecemeal transfer of U.S. military forces to UN supervision and command;

4. More and newer forms of foreign aid;

5. Undermining and isolation of any national leader who does not favor socialism and world government under a "new world order"; and

6. Submission to the radical demands of environmental extremists, population planners, and human rights crusaders who will never be satisfied until the United States no longer exists as a free and independent nation.

Some who follow the lead of the Establishment are undoubtedly committed to the world government and socialism advocated by Marx and the CFR's founders. But most who toe this line are self-promoters who are interested only in re-election, advancement, and recognition. They care little or nothing about the Constitution, their fellow citizens, and freedom in general.

The Shadows of Power

A thoroughly revealing history of the Council on Foreign Relations and its responsibility for America's decline is available in researcher James Perloff's superb book, The Shadows of Power. Unlike others who have sought to warn the American people about the pervasive power of the CFR, Mr. Perloff studied the organization's publications from its inception in 1921. The evidence he supplies to support his condemnation is taken from the CFR itself. His important book concludes that the CFR is a major participant in an ongoing conspiratorial drive to use the U.S. government and the wealth of the American people to create power over mankind for a few diabolically driven individuals.

Mr. Perloff is careful to point out that only some of the CFR's members are completely committed to the sinister goals he exposes. He believes...that many CFR members, and many others who follow the group's lead, would readily switch their allegiance should widespread awareness be created about this powerful organization's history and designs.

...Unless many more Americans become better informed and begin to take an active role in shaping our nation's affairs, the freedoms we have all taken for granted will disappear and the darkness of brutal totalitarianism will descent upon us. None of us wants an all-powerful tyrannical government dictating to each of us how we may live, what we may say, and whom we must serve.

--John F. McManus, Americans Have a Right to Know, Appleton, WI (1994), Pp 1-8.

The Council on Foreign Relations--Why?

Robert D. Shulzinger, in The Wise Men of Foreign Affairs: The History of the Council on Foreign Relations, noted that "nearly all of them were bankers or lawyers." This stereotype was unchanged fifty years later...

Another denominator common to many of the early CFR members was support--material or moral--for the Bolsheviks in Russia...

Leon Trotsky, who was living in New York City at the time Czar Nicholas abdicated, was able to return to Russia only because Woodrow Wilson intervened to secure him an American passport. On November 28, 1917, with the Bolsheviks newly in power, House cabled Wilson that any newspaper accounts describing Russia as a new enemy should be "suppressed." On that same day, Wilson declared there should be no interference with the revolution. Although the Bolsheviks' atrocities prevented the U.S. from officially recognizing their new government, Wilson continued to express his support for them, to the shock of many people.

Jacob Schiff, the head of Kuhn, Loeb and Co., heavily bankrolled the revolution. This was reported by White Russian General Arsene de Goulevitch in his book Czarism and the Revolution. The New York Journal-American stated on February 3, 1949:

Today it is estimated even by Jacob's grandson, John Schiff, a prominent member of New York Society, that the old man sank about $20,000,000 for the final triumph of Bolshevism in Russia. Other New York banking firms also contributed.

Schiff died before the CFR's incorporation, but his son Mortimer, and his partner, Federal Reserve architect Paul Warburg, both became founding Council members.

More than once, [this book] has noted the alignment of Wall Street's highest circles with Communism. This, of course, is hardly the orthodox outlook. We have always been told that Marxism and capitalism are sworn enemies. But this is frequently contradicted by their record.

Probably no name symbolizes capitalism more than Rockefeller. Yet that family has for decades supplied trade and credit to Communist nations...The Chase Manhattan Bank, chaired by David Rockefeller, maintains a branch office at 1 Karl Marx Square in Moscow, and has gain notoriety for financing projects behind the Iron Curtain.

We note parenthetically that while J.P. Morgan interests dominated the CFR in its early days, the center of influence gradually shifted to the Rockefellers. Indeed, David Rockefeller was chairman of the CFR from 1970 to 1985.

Now the question that must arise is why this unexpected--and unpublicized-- harmony exists between the super-rich and the Reds. If the Communists were obedient to their creed, they would be spitting at the "capitalist bosses," not climbing in bed with them.

The explanation materializes when we define, or perhaps redefine, certain concepts. Communism, in practice, is a system where government has total power--not only political power, but power over the economy, education, communications, etc. Socialism is essentially a lesser form--a little brother--of Communism: the government controls the means of production and distribution, but is not as pervasive in its authority.

The American free enterprise system, as originally set up, was much the opposite of Communism. The Constitution forced the government to remain "laissez faire"; it could exert virtually no influence on business, education, religion, and most other features of national life. These were left in the private hands of the people.

It is natural enough to suppose that rich capitalists, who made their fortunes through the free market, would be proponents of that system. This, however, has not been the case historically. Free enterprise means competition: it means, in its purest form, that everyone has an equal opportunity to make it in the marketplace. But John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, and other kingpins of the Money Trust were power monopolists. A monopolist seeks to eliminate competition. In fact, Rockefeller once said: "Competition is a sin." These men were not free enterprise advocates.

Their coziness with Marxism (it is well to remember that Marx's coauthor, Friedrich Engels, was a wealthy businessman) becomes more comprehensible when we realize that Communism and socialism are themselves forms of monopoly. The only difference is that in this case, the monopoly is operated by the government. But what if an international banker, through loans to the state, manipulation of a central bank, campaign contributions, or bribes, is able to achieve dominion over a government? In that case, he would find socialism welcome, for it would serve him as an instrument to control society...

There is nothing on earth more powerful than government, a fact long ago recognized by international bankers. Regulation, socialism, and Communism are simply different gradations of monopoly. Who cares if the government is running things--if you run the government? In Communist countries, it bears observing, the people do not run the government. There are either no elections or sham elections. Just as many captains of Wall Street ride falsely under the banner of free enterprise, so do the Communists have their own public relations myths. They are supposedly champions of the people--the "masses." Yet, from Petrograd to Phnom Penh, genocide has been the stamp of Communist takeover. What kind of government is it that erects walls and barbed wire to keep the people in? Such a country is not a "workers' paradise" but a prison.

In the final analysis, there is little difference between the goals of Marxism and capitalist monopolism. And both, along with the Council on Foreign Relations, share a common final objective: one-world government.

--James Perloff, The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations and the American Decline, Western Islands (1988), Pp. 37-46.

top of article

top of page

return

"History Has a Pattern"

According to some, history is basically a jumble of events: blunders, coincidences, and happenstances that have brought us to where we are today. This outlook does nothing to elucidate our past. However, seen in the context of globalist influence and maneuvering, history--especially twentieth century American history--begins to make sense, as if snapping into place upon a calculated blueprint.

With little exception, American policy has conformed to this blueprint ever since the New Deal. A good illustration is our China policy, which has brought us toward rapprochement with the Chinese Communists as swiftly as the American people could be persuaded to allow it. Every President since FDR has had a part in this continuum.

Step by step, our China policy, like our broad foreign policy, has followed an essentially unwavering course. It matters little which party occupies the White House. Anyone can see that when the "conservative" Richard Nixon went to Peking, he was paving the way for the "liberal" Jimmy Carter to recognize it.

Our history has a pattern. Thomas Jefferson once said:

Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate systematical plan of reducing us to slavery.

Jefferson's words could well be applied to the American historical process in this century. If that process continues unimpeded, we can anticipate a national crisis, a constitutional convention, and a new world order binding the Free World to the countries of the Iron and Bamboo Curtains.

--James Perloff, The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations and the American Decline, Western Islands (1988), Pp. 207-208.

top of article

top of page

return

The League of Nations

Woodrow Wilson was reelected in 1916 on the slogan, "He kept us out of war," but those words proved short-lived. Colonel House, in England, had already negotiated a secret agreement committing us to join the conflict. When war was declared, propaganda went full-tilt: All Huns were fanged serpents, and all Americans against the war were traitors. The U.S. mobilization broke the battlefield stalemate, leading to Germany's surrender.

The Paris Peace Conference of 1919 settled the aftermath of the war. It resulted in the Versailles Treaty, which required Germany to pay the victors severe reparations--even the pensions of allied soldiers. This devastated the German economy in the 1920s and paved the way for Adolph Hitler's rise.

Woodrow Wilson brought to the conference his famous "fourteen points." It was the fourteenth point that carried the payload: a proposal for a "general association of nations." From this sprang the League of Nations. It was the first step toward the ultimate goal of the international bankers: a world government--supported, no doubt, by a world central bank...

The League of Nations was successfully instituted; a number of countries that enrolled had powerful internationalist forces operating within them. But the United States could not join unless the Versailles Treaty received Senate ratification--a condition that the U.S. Constitution stipulates for any treaty.

The Senate balked. It was clear that the League couldn't guarantee peace any more than marriage guarantees that spouses won't quarrel. For the League to be strong enough to enforce world security, it would also have to strong enough to threaten our national sovereignty--and freedom-loving Americans wanted none of that. They had done their part to help win the war, and saw no reason why they should further entwine their fate with the dictatorships and monarchies of the Old World...

Well before the Senate's vote on ratification, news of its resistance to the League of Nations reached Colonel House...and other U.S. internationalists gathered in Paris. It was clear that America would not join the realm of world government unless something was done to shift its climate of opinion. Under House's direction, these men, along with some members of the British delegation to the Conference, held a series of meetings. On May 30, 1919, at a dinner at the Majestic Hotel, it was resolved that an "Institute of International Affairs" would be formed. It would have two branches--one in the United States, one in England.

The American branch became incorporated in New York as the Council on Foreign Relations on July 29, 1921.

As a note of interest, the British branch became known as the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA). Its leadership was controlled by members of the Round Table--a semi-secret internationalist group headquartered in London. The RIIA is CFR's counterpart, and has been dominant in British politics for over half a century...The CFR and RIIA were originally intended to be affiliates, but became independent bodies, although they have always maintained close informal ties.

--James Perloff, The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations and the American Decline, Western Islands (1988), Pp. 31-36.

top of article

top of page

return

The United Nations

Most Americans believe the UN was formed after World War II as a result of international revulsion at the horrors of the war. Actually, it originated in Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) intellects, and the term "United Nations" was in use as early as 1942.

In January 1943, Secretary of State Cordell Hull formed a steering committee composed of himself, Leo Pasvolsky, Isaiah Bowman, Sumner Welles, Norman Davis, and Myron Taylor. All of these men--with the exception of Hull--were in the CFR. Later known as the Informal Agenda Group, they drafted the original proposal for the United Nations. It was Bowman--a founder of the CFR and member of Colonel House's old "Inquiry"--who first put forward the concept. They called in three attorneys, all CFR men, who ruled that it was constitutional. They then discussed it with FDR on June 15, 1944. The President approved the plan, and announced it to the public that same day.

The UN founding conference took place in San Francisco in 1945. More than forty of American delegates attending were CFR members. Preeminent among them was Soviet agent Alger Hiss, who was Secretary-General of the conference and helped draft the UN Charter.

The Senate had rejected the League of Nations largely because the legislators had been able to study the issue before it came to a vote. This time, however, no chances were taken. Alger Hiss flew directly from San Francisco to Washington with the Charter locked in a small safe. After glib assurances from the delegates to the conference, the Senate ratified the document without significant pause for debate. [Shades of CFR Comrade Newt Gingrich's NAFTA and GATT fraud...--Scribe] Senator Pat McCarran later said: "Until my dying day, I will regret voting for the UN Charter."

But the United Nations was now law, and America, for the first time, part of a world government. Using an $8.5 million gift from John D. Rockefeller, Jr., the UN purchased land on New York's East River for its headquarters.

In the meantime, the CFR found a new home of its own, moving into the Harold Pratt House on East 68th Street, where it remains to this day. Curiously, the Soviets established their United Nations mission in a building across the street.

--James Perloff, The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations and the American Decline, Western Islands (1988), Pp. 71-72.

top of article

top of page

return