Council on Foreign Relations Members Rosters

• 2010
• 2009
• 2008
• 2007
• 2006
• 2005
• 2004

How many of the people in the following video are current members? The answer is more than three. And if Fareed Zakaria had been hosting that day, it would have been more than four - i.e. all of them.

A stacked deck. The Hegelian Dialectic in all its glory.

——————–

——————–

With the above lists, one can also gain an entirely different perspective on such groups as Freedom House and National Endowment for Democracy. How many of its leaders are members of the CFR?

The following article, “New World Order,” by William P. Hoar, originally appeared in American Opinion, (Volume 20, April 1977), and was subsequently updated and republished in his 1984 book Architects of Conspiracy: An Intriguing History (pp. 314-324). Most everyone is familiar with the term “New World Order” by now. However, some are under the mistaken impression that it originated with George H. W. Bush in the 1990s. As this article clearly proves, it had in fact been in use for decades, already as a euphemism for “world government.” George Bush’s near obsession with the term, then, is directly attributed to him having been so thoroughly indoctrinated in precisely the same elite organizations discussed below - the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, the World Affairs Council and the Aspen Institute, among others. Hoar also devotes much ink to the “World Order Models Project,” which was backed by the CFR, the World Federalists, as well as systems theory tecnocrats in organizations such as the Club of Rome. From the 60s to the 90s, these wisemen of globalization (who still operate behind the scenes with impunity) put forth innumerable schemes for a holistic transnational reordering of planet, ostensibly for the good of us all. This era also witnessed the emergence of the “New Age Movement” with the same players calling the shots; their haunt being the UN, Universities, Think Tanks, and Foundations.

(The text was consolidated from someone who posted the chapter online just recently. Unfortunately, formatting was nonexistent and replete with typos. Utilizing my own copy of the book, I fixed the errors and reconstituted it faithfully to the original. Footnotes were converted to endnotes.)

————-

New World Order, by William P. Hoar

Architects of Conspiracy: An Intriguing History (pp. 314-324)

“When in the course of history the threat of extinction confronts mankind, it is necessary for the people of the United States to declare their interdependence with the peoples of all nations to embrace those principles and build those institutions which will enable mankind to survive and civilization to flourish. Two centuries ago our forefathers brought forth a new nation; now we must join together with others to bring forth a new world order.”

That abominable parody of the U.S. Declaration of Independence was prepared by historian Henry Steele Commager as part of a so-called Declaration of INTERdependence, a project of the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia. Shamefully, this altered Declaration was signed by more than one hundred members of Congress on the two hundredth anniversary of the proclamation of American independence.

The Declaration of INTERdependence was a part of the continuing drive to dilute, then dissolve, the sovereignty of the United States of America. The goal, we are repeatedly told, is a New World Order, a new international economic order, or any one of a half-dozen similar euphemisms. In any case, it would mean the end of the U.S. as we know it, and her submission first to regional and then world government. The proponents claim that achievement of their goal is inevitable; Americans can acquiesce and take their medicine, or have it shoved down their throats.

(more…)

The role of the corporate elites’ secretive global think tanks

Andrew Gavin Marshall - October 19, 2010

We now stand at the edge of the global financial abyss of a ‘Great Global Debt Depression,’ where nations, mired in extreme debt, are beginning to implement ‘fiscal austerity’ measures to reduce their deficits, which will ultimately result in systematic global social genocide, as the middle classes vanish and the social foundations upon which our nations rest are swept away. How did we get here? Who brought us here? Where is this road leading? These are questions I will briefly attempt to answer.

At the heart of the global political economy is the central banking system. Central banks are responsible for printing a nation’s currency and setting interest rates, thus determining the value of the currency. This should no doubt be the prerogative of a national government, however, central banks are of a particularly deceptive nature, in which while being imbued with governmental authority, they are in fact privately owned by the world’s major global banks, and are thus profit-seeking institutions. How do central banks make a profit? The answer is simple: how do all banks make a profit? Interest on debt. Loans are made, interest rates are set, and profits are made. It is a system of debt, imperial economics at its finest.

In the United States, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, creating the Federal Reserve System, with the Board located in Washington, appointed by the President, but where true power rested in the 12 regional banks, most notably among them, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The regional Fed banks were private banks, owned in shares by the major banks in each region, which elected the board members to represent them, and who would then share power with the Federal Reserve Board in Washington.

In the early 1920s, the Council on Foreign Relations was formed in the United States as the premier foreign policy think tank, dominated by powerful banking interests. In 1930, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) was created to manage German reparations payments, but it also had another role, which was much less known, but much more significant. It was to act as a “coordinator of the operations of central banks around the world.” Essentially, it is the central bank for the world’s central banks, whose operations are kept ‘strictly confidential.’

Full story

Americans want our rulers to mind their own business abroad – and good luck with that!

Justin Raimondo, December 07, 2009

The news
that Americans want the U.S. government to mind its own business when it comes
to foreign affairs has our Washington elite in a panic. The explanatory
notes accompanying a new
Pew poll [.pdf] describe the "rise in isolationist sentiment"
that started during George W. Bush’s second term and continues in the age of
Obama. The agonized hand-wringing is all
too apparent in the use of the "isolationist" epithet and even
in the way the question was asked: should the U.S. "mind its own business
internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their
own"? Forty-nine percent – the highest proportion "in nearly half
a century of polling" – answered yes. And that’s not all: a gob-smacking
76 percent agreed the U.S. should "concentrate more on our own national
problems and building up our strength and prosperity here at home," as
opposed to "think[ing] in international terms."

The poll took samples from two groups: common, ordinary, everyday people (i.e.,
you and me)
and members of the Council on Foreign Relations,
an elite group of foreign policy-oriented intellectuals, policy wonks, and high
muckamucks. The elite group disagreed sharply with the general public’s view
on virtually every important question: for example, none of the CFR members
thought we should mind our own business – a policy that would go against the
group’s history and orientation, which has always been pronouncedly interventionist.

Full story

No ‘conspiracy theory,’ scheme hatched by CFR was sold to Bush, now Obama

Jerome R. Corsi - October 23, 2009

NEW YORK – The integration of the United States with Canada and Mexico, long deemed by many as little more than a fanciful “conspiracy theory,” was actually an idea promoted by the Council on Foreign Relations and sold to President Bush as a means of increasing commerce and business interests throughout North America, according to a top Canadian businessman.

Thomas d’Aquino, CEO and president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives – the Canadian counterpart to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce – confirmed in an interview recently published in Canada the accuracy of what WND first reported over three years ago: namely, that the Council on Foreign Relations was the prime mover in establishing the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP.

Published by the Metropolitan Corporate Counsel Oct. 4, the d’Aquino interview verifies that the creation of the SPP was not a “conspiracy theory” but a well-thought-out North American integration plan launched by his organization, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, along with the Council on Foreign Relations in the United States.

Full story

Andrew Gavin Marshall - August 3, 2009

The Bilderberg Group and the European Union Project

In 1954, the Bilderberg Group was founded in the Netherlands, which was a secretive meeting held once a year, drawing roughly 130 of the political-financial-military-academic-media elites from North America and Western Europe as “an informal network of influential people who could consult each other privately and confidentially.”[1] Regular participants include the CEOs or Chairman of some of the largest corporations in the world, oil companies such as Royal Dutch Shell, British Petroleum, and Total SA, as well as various European monarchs, international bankers such as David Rockefeller, major politicians, presidents, prime ministers, and central bankers of the world.[2]

Joseph Retinger, the founder of the Bilderberg Group, was also one of the original architects of the European Common Market and a leading intellectual champion of European integration. In 1946, he told the Royal Institute of International Affairs (the British counterpart and sister organization of the Council on Foreign Relations), that Europe needed to create a federal union and for European countries to “relinquish part of their sovereignty.” Retinger was a founder of the European Movement (EM), a lobbying organization dedicated to creating a federal Europe. Retinger secured financial support for the European Movement from powerful US financial interests such as the Council on Foreign Relations and the Rockefellers.[3] However, it is hard to distinguish between the CFR and the Rockefellers, as, especially following World War II, the CFR’s main finances came from the Carnegie Corporation, Ford Foundation and most especially, the Rockefeller Foundation.[4]

Full story

Ruth Rendely - July 30, 2009

When I was a high school junior at Montgomery Blair High School in Silver Spring, Maryland, I started a United Nation’s Club. I vaguely remember that Carl Bernstein joined my club, before he graduated to become a cub reporter at the Washington Post. As a result of my love for the U.N., I subsequently became the national student chairman of the United World Federalists, a group led by Norman Cousins, that wanted a world government based on the U.N. charter. The United World Federalists aspired to put some teeth into the structure of the United Nations, so that it could eventually replace nation state armies with U.N. forces. This we hoped would prevent an atomic holocaust.

That was almost 50 years ago, and I have since learned a few things about this planet. I now believe that in my youth I was a pawn for the American version of the English Fabian Socialist movement. The Fabians helped create the Council on Foreign Relations in 1921, the United Nations in 1945, and other New World Order groups that aim for a world government based upon communist principles, but with a softer, gradualist, non-violent approach. Their ideal is to promote the greatest good for the greatest number of people, in opposition, however, to principles of individuality and freedom.

(more…)

James Perloff - 23 July 2009

During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama consistently promised Americans “change.” Such promises aren’t new to the voting public.

When Jimmy Carter ran for president, he said: “The people of this country know from bitter experience that we are not going to get … changes merely by shifting around the same group of insiders.” And top Carter aide Hamilton Jordan promised: “If, after the inauguration, you find a Cy Vance as Secretary of State and Zbigniew Brzezinski as head of National Security, then I would say we failed. And I’d quit.” Yet Carter selected Vance as Secretary of State and Brzezinski as National Security Adviser; the “same group of insiders” had been shifted around; and Jordan did not quit.

Carter’s administration was dominated by members of the Trilateral Commission, which had been founded by Brzezinski and David Rockefeller. In 1980, when Ronald Reagan was campaigning against Carter, he protested:

I don’t believe that the Trilateral Commission is a conspiratorial group, but I do think its interests are devoted to international banking, multinational corporations, and so forth. I don’t think that any Administration of the U.S. Government should have the top nineteen positions filled by people from any one group or organization representing one viewpoint. No, I would go in a different direction.

Full story

Thomas R. Eddlem - 23 March 2009

Newspapers are fixated upon $160 million in bonuses given to American International Group (AIG) executives. And it’s nice to know where the millions are going (note: the bonuses could have been cancelled had the federal government let the company go bankrupt, as officials should have). But where are the trillions in TARP, TALC and Federal Reserve Bank bailout funds going?

The man in charge of administering the bailouts is Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who served as a staff member of the New York City-based Council on Foreign Relations before being hired in 2003 to head the New York City branch of the Federal Reserve Bank (Fed). As the vice chairman of the Fed’s Open Market Committee, Geithner is probably a poor choice to get the nation out of it’s current economic mess. He served as Alan Greenspan’s number two man at the Fed, so Geithner is as responsible as anyone for facilitating the severity of the real estate and financial bubble and its subsequent collapse. After all, the Fed was the driving force behind the asset bubble, inflating the bubble larger and larger through artificially low interest rates and an inflationary easy-money policy.

Full story

Old-Thinker News | March 31, 2009
By Daniel Taylor

The Council on Foreign Relations, often described as the “real state department”, has launched an initiative to promote and implement a system of effective world governance.

The program, titled “The International Institutions and Global Governance Program,” utilizes the resources of the “…David Rockefeller Studies Program to assess existing regional and global governance mechanisms…” The initial funding for the program came with a $6 million grant from the Robina Foundation, which claims that the grant is “…one of the largest operating grants ever received in Council history.”

Full story

Mose Farber - March 9, 2009

As the state of the declining global economy worsens, the world turns to the American economic powerhouse for direction. With the Obama administration’s promises of recovery, transparency and accountability for the economy, much of the burden falls onto the shoulders of the Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. The Fed, which sets the nation’s monetary policy and regulates banks, is immersed in trying to keep the U.S. financial system from cratering.

Today, Bernanke attended President Obama’s daily economic briefing to work on solving the increasing array of economic problems, and tomorrow he will set out his plan for regulating the banks in a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Full story

JAMES TRAUB (CFR) - January 3, 2009

Even before Israel launched attacks on Gaza last week, Barack Obama’s incoming national security team understood that the consuming demands of crises could all too easily eclipse the transformational agenda on foreign affairs that Mr. Obama advanced during the campaign.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, instability in Pakistan and the threat of nuclear proliferation in Iran would have been more than enough to crowd out any thought of long-range planning. Now the Middle East is in flames again. And yet a wide range of foreign policy experts are urging the new president to look beyond the smoke and the bloodshed — indeed, to leverage the pervasive sense of crisis — to reshape the world’s governing structures.

Full story

Paul Kennedy - 01/05/2009

Every so often in the history of international affairs, a great transnational turbulence shakes the foundations of the world and brings many of its older structures tumbling to the ground, as we witnessed in 1919, 1945 and 1989. In the confusion and babble that follow, it’s difficult to see through the dust and recognize the shape of the altered strategic landscape.

Full story

John W. Wallace - New York Campaign for Liberty (24/11/08)

When I was growing up in the Inwood section of upper Manhattan, I remember when I was about 12 or 13 years old I had my first contact with discovering what a “front” was for another business.  It was called Tack’s Tackle Shop.  When it first opened, it looked like just another business. The guy in the store, Tack, was selling fishing rods, live bait and an array of fishing equipment. It didn’t take long before the kids in the neighborhood figured out that perhaps there was something else going on.  The live bait in the window wasn’t alive anymore and local hoods and gangster type people seemed to be going in and out, particularly in the evenings and none of them looked like fishermen. It wasn’t long before the place was raided by the NYCPD and my friends and I all watched from across the street on Sherman Avenue as “Tack” came out in handcuffs along with a bunch of other men.  We were later told that Tack’s Tackle Shop had actually been a front for an illegal gambling operation.

A “front group” can be any entity that is set up to appear to be a legitimate independent organization, like Tack’s Tackle Shop, when it is actually controlled from behind the scenes by another organization or group of individuals. These front groups are often legitimate businesses, social or political organizations, professional groups, advocacy groups, research organizations, etc. Organized crime has used legitimate front organizations for many decades to launder their income from various illegal activities. Pharmaceutical companies have used front organizations to advocate for the drugs they manufacture. International terrorist organizations have their front groups here in the United States and as the evidence clearly shows, so do the international bankers.

After researching the formation and activities of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) it appears that it may be a very sophisticated version of “Tack’s Tackle Shop.” The CFR was specifically set up to carry out the goals and objectives of  international bankers so that the public positions taken by the CFR would appear to be independent positions that could not be directly connected to the international bankers who personally control and fund the CFR.

(more…)

While the Center for a New American Security may well be the “farm team,” what they don’t tell you is the Council on Foreign Relations - as always - is the Majors. Typical MSM subterfuge. It is far more significant that most of the Obama team are members of the CFR - THE establishment - than a one-year-old “think tank.”

Yochi J. Dreazen - Nov 16, 2008

WASHINGTON — The Center for a New American Security, a small think tank here with generally middle-of-the-road policy views, is rapidly emerging as a top farm team for the incoming Obama administration.

When President-elect Barack Obama released a roster of his transition advisers last week, many of the national-security appointments came from the ranks of the center, which was founded by a pair of former Clinton administration officials in February 2007.

The think tank’s central role in the transition effort suggests that its positions — which include rejecting a fixed timeline for a withdrawal from Iraq — will get a warm reception within the new administration.

Full story