Tagged: CFR

The Bilderberg Connection: Did The Bilderberg Group Send Nixon to China?


By Will Banyan (Copyright © 03 October 2015)

US President Richard Nixon’s historic visit to Beijing in 1972 is considered by some analysts to be the “master stroke in modern American diplomacy”, if not the most visible aspect of Nixon and Henry Kissinger’s effort to “reshape American foreign policy”, one that “transformed the Cold War.”[1] Yet, according to Daniel Estulin, it was the Bilderberg Group that “took the decision for the U.S. to establish formal relations with China before Nixon’s administration made it public policy.”[2] This is a contentious allegation, for which Estulin provides no evidence of in his book The True Story of the Bilderberg Group (2007). Estulin has attributed the claim to documents shown to him by the late Jim Tucker,[3] although Tucker made no such claims in his Bilderberg Diary. It also seems that the American Free Press, Tucker’s former employer, do not possess such documents,[4] with none of their reporting displaying knowledge of such material. A 2014 report by Tucker’s successor Mark Anderson, for example, claimed the Bilderbergers “apparently worked well in advance on what became normalized relations with China,” citing two Bilderberg conferences as evidence:

The 1969 [Bilderberg] meeting included just two admitted topics: “Elements of instability in Western society,” along with a look at “conflicting attitudes within the Western world toward relations with the U.S.S.R. and other Communist states of Eastern Europe.”

At the 1956 meeting, the Bilderbergers considered the causes of growth of anti-Western nations within the United Nations, along with “a common approach by the Western world toward China and the emergent nations of South and East Asia.”[5]

The source for Anderson’s information, however, appears to be no more than the topic lists for each meeting at the official Bilderberg Meetings website (see Figure 1).[6]

Figure 1: Agenda Topics for 1956 Bilderberg Meeting

11-13 May 1956, Fredensborg, Denmark

  • Review of developments since the last Conference
  • The causes of the growth of anti-Western blocs, in particular in the United Nations
  • The role played by anti-colonialism in relations between Asians and the West
  • A common approach by the Western world towards China and the emergent nations of South and East Asia
  • The communist campaign for political subversion or control of the newly emancipated countries of Asia
  • How the West can best meet Asian requirements in the technical and economic fields



The Revisionist Revises…James Perloff Discovers American Imperialism


By Will Banyan Copyright © 16 September 2012

James Perloff is one of the more celebrated authors in the John Birch Society’s pantheon of “experts”. His book The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations and the American Decline (1988) was a top-seller, clearing at least 100,000 copies by 1994. One struggles to find a critical word about it, save for the occasional disgruntled buyer on Amazon. Since publishing The Shadows of Power, Perloff’s contributions to JBS publications have been sporadic as he pursued his bigger interest of defending “creation science” from the travails of evolutionary theory. Only in the past five years has he made something of a comeback to the pages of The New American, offering a number of articles on the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the “betrayal” of China into Communism, US integration with the European Union, the downfall of the Shah of Iran, and various episodes in US history.

Despite the praise heaped upon Perloff, his research is as slipshod and ideologically motivated as that offered by his colleagues, including JBS President John McManus. The Shadows of Power was replete with risible and inaccurate claims. His book describes the CFR as the Establishment’s “chief link” (p.5) to the US Government and credits it with having “exercised decisive impact on US policy” (p.7). That is, in itself, not that controversial having been detailed in Laurance Shoup and William Minter’s better documented study Imperial Brain Trust: The Council on Foreign Relations and United States Foreign Policy (1977). What distinguishes The Shadows of Power is Perloff’s innocent airing of “charges” that the CFR “holds two particularly unwholesome doctrines.”



Kissinger directing policy behind the scenes

As the most recent National Security Advisor of the United States, I take my daily orders from Dr. Kissinger, filtered down through General Brent Scowcroft and Sandy Berger, who is also here. We have a chain of command in the National Security Council that exists today.

James L. Jones; remarks at the 45th Munich Conference on Security Policy at the Hotel Bayerischer Hof on February 8, 2009


North American Forum: The Secret Cabal of Trinational Elites


by Terry Melanson ©, Sept. 28th, 2006

“We’re talking about such an important thing, we’re talking about the integration of Canada into the United States. For them to hold this meeting in secret and to make every effort to avoid anybody learning about it, right away you’ve got to be hugely concerned,” [Mel] Hurtig said.

Independent Task Force on the Future of North America; Canadian Council of Chief Executives My first thought following the news of the secret meeting of elites at Banff Springs Hotel, Alberta, Canada (Sept. 12-14), was that this amounted to a new group of insiders in the tradition of the Bilderbergers. This assessment turned out to be more precise than I had originally anticipated.

According to a participant at the 2006 North American Forum held in Banff, the Forum began last year as a “parallel structure” to the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) for North America, which was announced on March 23, 2005 in Waco, Texas. As the Banff conference was coming to a close, Thomas Shannon addressed officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade in Ottawa, Canada:



Unholy Matrimony: The Tie Between the Cult of Intelligence and the Cult of Oligarchy


by Paul David Collins ©, Sept. 9th, 2006

TrotskyitesRecently the Central Intelligence Agency added yet another scandal to its ever-growing list. The scandal involved the outsourcing of torture. The following news article elaborates:

Two nations in support of the White House’s 2003 invasion of Iraq – Poland and Romania – are at the heart of a European Union investigation on human rights abuses and torture claims at camps allegedly run by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Poland and Romania, along with Bulgaria, have indicated this week they intend to withdraw troops from Iraq saying the economic and image costs have run too high.

The White House doesn’t directly comment on whether or not the CIA is running secret prisons in Europe to house and torture al Qaeda captives, but vows the claims warrant an investigation.

However, more information from Europe has uncovered at least two CIA special flights landed in France in 2002 and again in 2005, but investigators did not know the final destination of those flights, which used a CIA Learjet and Gulfstream III. But the European Union says more than 300 flights in total have involved clandestine CIA activities. (No pagination).



The Gatekeepers of the So-Called Left


by Charles Shaw ©, May 16th, 2005

Last February United for Peace and Justice, the largest representative coalition within the American “anti-war movement”, emerged from their second annual Assembly with a 2005 “action plan” that effectively caged the “anti-war” debate exclusively within the Iraq conflict to achieve partisan ends on behalf of the pro-war Democratic Party and their Neoliberal corporate benefactors. Their “action plan” refused to address any of the core issues of US Foreign and Defense policy, which are the root causes of a pervading culture of war and militarism that has taken over the nation in the years since WWII.

These decisions are part of a larger pattern of “regulated resistance”, a system by which dissent is carefully managed and constrained by self, overt, or covert censorship; denial-based-psychology; fear of personal or professional criticism and reprisal; and pressure from powers above including elected officials and those establishment foundations which flood millions into the not-for-profit activist sector.

This establishment money, and the access it grants, has caused many ostensible resistance leaders to suddenly and dramatically abandon long-held ideological positions and shift their behavior towards doing what can clearly be seen as the bidding of those in power whose views and values are in direct contravention to the established mores of peace and justice movements throughout history.



The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and The New World Order


by W. E. B. | 1995-12-31

For those who may be confused by the controversies surrounding the “New World Order”, a One-World-Government, and American concern over giving the UN more power; those unaware of the issues involved; and those wishing more background, I offer the following.

Originally presented for an Honors Class, “Dilemmas of War and Peace,” at New Mexico State University, the paper was ridiculed and characterized by Dr. Yosef Lapid, (an acknowledged and locally quoted “expert” on Terrorism and Middle Eastern affairs) as “paranoid… possibly a symptom of mental illness.” You may judge for yourself.

Citing source data is the “scientific method,” but does not seem to apply to “Conspiracy Theories.” A thousand sources may be quoted, yet will not convince the “skeptics,” the “realists.” It seems to me the “symptoms of mental illness” are on their side, if they refuse to look at evidence (“There are none so blind as those who WILL not see”); or perhaps something more sinister is at work, such as a knowledge of the truth, that does not want YOU to know.

To be paranoid means to believe in delusions of danger and persecution. If the danger is real, and the evidence credible, then it cannot be delusional. To ignore the evidence, and hope that it CANNOT be true, is more an evidence of mental illness.

The issue involves much more than a difference of philosophy, or political viewpoint. Growing up in the midst of the “Cold War,” our generation were taught that those who attempted to abolish our national sovereignty and overthrow our Constitutional government were committing acts of treason. Please judge for yourself if the group discussed is guilty of such.

If one group is effectively in control of national governments and multinational corporations; promotes world government through control of media, foundation grants, and education; and controls and guides the issues of the day; then they control most options available. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and the financial powers behind it, have done all these things, and promote the “New World Order”, as they have for over seventy years.



CFR’s “House of World Order”

...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.

— Richard N. Gardner, in "The Hard Road to World Order," Foreign Affairs (April 1974), p. 558


Richard Haass quote

The near monopoly of power once enjoyed by sovereign entities is being eroded ... states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies ... Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker ... The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalization, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy.

— Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, Feb. 21st, 2006 ("State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era")