The Rockefeller File Part 2

Chapter XVI, Part II of a two-volume set.

The best way for the Rockefeller-Morgan Insiders to eliminate growing compet.i.tion was to impose a progressive income tax on their compet.i.tors while making sure the law contained built-in escape hatches for themselves. Actually, very few of the proponents of the graduated income tax realized they were playing into the hands of those they were seeking to control. As Ferdinand Lundberg notes in The Rich And The Super rich: What it [the income tax] became, finally, was a siphon gradually inserted into the pocketbooks of the general public. Imposed to popular huzzahs as a cla.s.s tax, the income tax was gradually turned into a ma.s.s tax in a jujitsu turnaround ....

The Insiders' princ.i.p.al mouthpiece in the Senate during this period was Nelson Aldrich of Rhode Island, the maternal grandfather of Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller. Lundberg says that "when Aldrich spoke, newsmen understood that although the words were his, the dramatic line was surely approved by 'Big John' [D. Rockefeller] . . . .- In earlier years Aldrich had denounced the income tax as -communist and socialistic,- but in 1909 he pulled a dramatic and stunning reversal. The American Biographical- Dictionary comments: just when the opposition had become formidable he (Aldrich) took the wind out of its sails by bringing forward, with the support of the President (Taft) a proposed amendment to the Const.i.tution empowering Congress to lay income taxes.

The escape hatch was ready. By the time the Amendment had been approved by the states, the Rockefeller Foundation was in full operation. The careful orchestration of both parts of the campaign represents one of the most successful financial coups in history. The money the Rockefellers have made by it is incalculable.

By exempting themselves from the burden they forced on their compet.i.tors, the Rockefellers were able to operate in a world of near laissez-faire capitalism while foisting the weight of more and more socialism on their compet.i.tors. It is the equivalent of a sprinter forcing every other runner in a race to carry a sixteen-pound shot.

Backing the graduated income tax had another timely advantage for old John. It was about the same time that Judge Kenesaw Landis was ordering the breakup of the Standard Oil monopoly. Wily John D. was able to kill several flying feathered creatures with a single hard object. He not only avoided taxes by creating four great tax exempt foundations; he used them as repositories for his -divested- interests in the various Standard Oil ent.i.ties. In the switch, Rockefeller had made his a.s.sets non-taxable so that they might be pa.s.sed down through generations without being ravaged by the estate and gift taxes which everyone else had to pay. As Lundberg observed, old John D. planned ahead.

Each year the Rockefellers can dump up to half their incomes into their pet foundations and deduct the "donations" from their income tax. Nelson admitted at the confirmation hearings:" . . the foundation pays no capital gains tax and no income tax so those funds can continue to multiply. They not only can, they do.

Having the foundations as a tax-free piggy bank is only one of the advantages they provide the family.

As Business Week has observed: -"The real motive behind most private foundations is keeping control of wealth. "In the foundation world, where - not for profit- really means not-for- taxation,- one exchanges ownership for control.

The Rockefellers have further advantages with their foundations. They can buy, sell or hold real estate, stocks and other securities. Congressman Wright Patman, chairman of the House Banking Committee, has charged that the Rockefellers and other foundations act in concert, using their enormous portfolios to perform maneuvers which used to be known indelicately as -rigging the market.- So powerful have the major foundations become that the Patman Committee concluded: "Unquestionably, the economic life of our Nation has become so intertwined with foundations that unless something is done about it they will hold a dominant position in every phase of American life."

Since this report was issued by the Patman Committee in the early 1950s, absolutely nothing has been done about the power of the Rockefeller-controlled foundations - except to a.s.sist them to become even more powerful. And as this knowledgeable study warned over twenty years ago, these foundations now do hold " adominant position in every phase of American life", as we shall see.

It is the Rockefeller family which sits comfortably astride this foundation colossus. Collectively, the Rockefeller foundations have in excess of $1.5 billion in a.s.sets but they also have interlocking control over the other most powerful foundations, the Carnegie Group and the giant Ford Foundation.

When you hear of "Carnegie Foundation" think Rockefeller. For many years the five Carnegie foundations have been mere appendages of the Rockefeller octopus. The chief operators of the Carnegie foundations have for decades been members of the Rockefeller coordinating committee, the Council on Foreign Relations, the glue which holds the Rockefeller Establishment together. (The Council on Foreign Relations, or CFR, is the subject of the next chapter.) In addition, two of the six men on the Carnegie Corporation's finance committee are also directors of Rockefeller financial inst.i.tutions.

The baby giant of the foundation world is the $3 billion-in-a.s.sets Ford Foundation. From 1953 to 1965, John J. Mc Cloy was chairman of the Ford Foundation, during most of which time he was also chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank. Mc Cloy was succeeded by another Rockefeller minion, Eugene Black, a director of Chase Manhattan and former head of the World Bank. Currently running the show at the Ford Foundation is Mc George Bundy, formerly on the payroll of the Rockefellers' Council on Foreign Relations. As with the Carnegie foundations, most of the trustees of the Ford Foundation are members of the Rockefellers' Council on Foreign Relations.

It is not too hard to see how, as the Patman Committee has charged, these foundations can collude to act as a single ent.i.ty. The terrible part of this business is that the economic fraud permitted the Rockefellers through their foundations- though maddening to the middle-cla.s.s taxpayers who are aware of it-is the least malignant part of the foundation picture. It is the political and social impact of these foundations which is devastating. So serious is the matter, in fact, that even the irascible Congressman. Patman has not dared venture into such affairs, knowing that the trail is littered with the bleached bones of, imprudent Congressional investigators who sought to reveal how the Rockefellers are using the foundations in their grab for complete domination of the United States, The first of the Congressional Committees to attempt such an investigation was the c.o.x Committee, created in 1952 under the leadership of Congressman Eugene E.c.o.x, a Democrat from Georgia. Warren Weaver notes in U. S, Philanthropic Foundations that the official purpose of this Committee was to determine which -foundations and organizations are using their resources for purposes other than the purposes for which they were established, and especially to determine which such foundations and organizations are using their resources for un-American and subversive activities or for purposes not in the interest or tradition of the United States."

"Liberal" Democrats in control of Congress first delayed the appropriation of funds for the c.o.x Committee, then gave it only six months to conclude an investigation that would properly require several years.

c.o.x hoped to expose foundation fraud and the subversives, behind it; but, as Dwight Mac Donald has pointed out, " the strategy misfired, because the Democratic leaders, who were still in control of the House, boxed the impeccably Americanistic chairman with less dedicated colleagues." It was all-out war-with billions involved.

The first battle ended with a serious casualty Congressman c.o.x fell gravely ill during the investigation and died.

Without his leadership, the Committee Report became a whitewash.

One member of that Committee refused to be a party to the Cover up. He was Congressman Carroll Reece of Tennessee, a former Chairman of the Republican National Committee and one of Robert Taft's campaign managers. Reece promptly demanded a new investigation.

The Rockefeller Establishment was frantic that its sacred cows might be butchered. "The Washington Post, closely tied to the Rockefellers, never before known for its sense of public frugality, screamed that the Reece probe was "wholly unnecessary and was stupidly wasteful of public funds.-"

The heat was on. So much so that when in a speech on the floor of Congress Mr. Reece referred to a "conspiracy," his use of the term brought down on his head an avalanche of anger and ridicule from virtually the entire Establishment Press. At the same time, the foundations unleashed an enormous barrage of vilification against the probe.

While the Press was shouting "- Mc Carthyism, Rockefeller elements in the Republican Party were working behind the scenes to kill the investigation. As Rene Wormser, counsel for the Reece Committee, noted in Human Events for July 5, 1969: A Republican President [Eisenhower, who had the full support of the Rockefellers in his fight against Robert Taft] sat in the White House. The House of Representatives and all its committees were Republican controlled. Mr. Reece was a distinguished and important Republican .... Yet, when a committee of five members was appointed to conduct the foundation investigation, Mr. Reece found that, of the four others appointed with him, three had been selected from among members of the House who had voted against the investigation.

The key agent in Rockefeller efforts to break up the investigation was Congressman Wayne Hays of Ohio, a member of the Committee. During the inquiry, two tennis-shoe types decided to play Agatha Christie and began trailing Hays. They discovered that he went to the same Washington hotel for a closed luncheon on a specific day each week. Dressing as cleaning women, the ladie, investigated and established that Hays was reporting to representatives of several major foundations. Rent Wormser comments in Human Events on the Hays' tactics, Mr. Hays showed himself exceptionally adept at disruption. For example, in one session of 185 minutes, he resorted to constant interruption 246 times. He refused to obey rules of the committee. He insulted and vilified witnesses, counsel to the committee and committee members themselves. His intransigence finally caused' a termination of the hearings.

The brazen Congressman Hays even explained the purpose of his conduct to Counsel Wormser. Mr.

Wormser noted in his book, Foundations: Their Power and Influence: -. . . Mr. Hays told us one day that "the White House" had been in touch with him and asked him if be would cooperate to kill the committee."

Because of limited time, staff, and money, the Reece Committee was forced to concentrate its investigation or various Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations, and on the huge Ford Foundation.

The Committee found that one of the first areas into which John D. invested his money was education.

Daddy Oilbucks put his a.s.sistant, Fred Gates, in charge of his General Education Board. Gates tipped the Rockefeller philosophy on education in the Board's Occasional Paper No.1; In our dreams we have limitless resources and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present educational conventions fade from our minds, and unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive rural folk.

Later, the General Education Board expanded horizons to take into its "molding hands" the city folk at well. To this end the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations, which often had interlocking directorates and many times acted in unison, began in the early Thirties to back John Dewey and his Marxist educationalists with enormous amounts of money.

As Rene Wormser observes: Research and experimental stations were established at selected universities, notably Columbia, Stanford, and Chicago. Here some of the worst mischief in recent education-was born. In these Rockefeller-and-Carnegie established vineyards worked many of the princ.i.p.al characters in the story of the suborning of American education. Here foundations nurtured some of the most ardent academic advocates of upsetting the American system and supplanting it with a Socialist state....

The Carnegie and Rockefeller foundations had jumped into the financing of education and the social sciences with both Left feet. For example, the foundations (princ.i.p.ally Carnegie and Rockefeller) stimulated two-thirds of the total endowment funding of all inst.i.tutions of higher learning in America during the first third of this century. During this period the Carnegie-Rockefeller complex supplied 20 % of the total income of colleges and universities and became in fact, if not in name, a sort of U.S. Ministry of Education. The result was a sharp Socialist-Fascist turn. As Rene Wormser, Counsel for the Reece Committee, reports: A very powerful complex of foundations and allied organizations has developed over the years to exercise a high degree of control over education. Part of this complex, and ultimately responsible for it, are the Rockefeller and Carnegie groups of foundations.

These foundations were, by way of grants amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars, responsible for the nationwide acceptance of avowed socialist John Dewey's theories of progressive education and permissiveness -the products of which have been marching on our college campuses for the past two decades.

Traditionalist teachers, who had been strongly resisting Deweyism, were swamped by education propagandists backed with a flood of Rockefeller-Carnegie dollars. At the same time the National Education a.s.sociation, the country's chief education lobby, was also financed largely by the Rockfellers and Carnegie foundations.

It, too, threw its considerable weight behind the Dewey philosophies. As an NEA report maintained in 1934:.

A dying laissez-faire must be completely destroyed and all of us, including the "owners," must be subjected to a large degree of social control.

Since America's public school system was decentralized, the foundations had concentrated on influencing schools of education (particularly Columbia, the sp.a.w.ning ground for Deweyism), and on financing the writing of textbooks which were subsequently adopted nationwide. These foundation- produced textbooks were so heavily slanted in favor of socialism that Wormser concluded:"- It is difficult to believe that the Rockefeller Foundation and the National Education a.s.sociation could have supported these textbooks. But the fact is that Rockefeller financed them and the N.E.A. promoted them very widely.- Little wonder that Reece Committee Counsel Wormser says evidence compiled during and after the Reece investigation of foundations: leads one to the conclusion that there was, indeed something in the nature of an actual conspiracy among certain leading educators in the United States to bring about socialism through the use of our school systems...

Congressman c.o.x had denounced these foundations for precisely these reasons. He named in particular the Rockefeller Foundation, -whose funds have been used to finance individuals and organizations whose business it has been to get communism into the private and public schools of the country, to talk down America and play up Russia....

It goes without saying that, by controlling the textbooks, the progressivists gained an open sesame to the minds of millions of students in the government schools. As John T. Flynn observed, it wasn't necessary to poison every gla.s.s of water coming out of every tap in a given community. It was necessary only to drop one cup of poison into the reservoir.

So successful was this conspiracy that by June of 1955, the Progressive Education a.s.sociation which had been founded by John Dewey officially disbanded. Dr. H. Gordon Hullfish, the a.s.sociation's president, explained: Founded in 1919 the PEA was a protest movement against traditional education, based in large part up on the philosophy of John Dewey. One reason for PEA's end is that many of the practices. It has advocated have been adopted by the nation's schools.

This progressive education is Rockefeller education. After all, they planned for it, they promoted it, and they paid for it!

Those who control education will over a period of several generations control a nation. The Rockefellers have for five or six decades been a controlling influence in the direction of American education.

While education is a powerful tool for controlling the thinking and outlook of people, it is not the only means.

Religion is also an important molder of public opinion.

For many years the Rockefeller Dynasty has bankrolled the Union Theological Seminary of New York, which has done so much to turn the clergy towards state socialism fascism, and to destroy the tenets of traditional Christianity. The highly influential seminary is known for turning out " Christian- Communists.

The family's chief religious philanthropy for a number of years was the notorious Federal Council of Churches, which was p.r.o.nounced by US Naval Intelligence in 1936 as one of the most dangerous, subversive organizations in the country. According to Naval Intelligence: It is a large radical -pacifist- organization, and probably represents 20,000,000 Protestants in the United States. However, its leadership consists of a small group which dictates its policies. It is always extremely active in any matters against national defense.

In its many official p.r.o.nouncements, the Federal Council attacked free enterprise, capitalism and the American way of life, and boldly advocated Socialism. In an official report in 1932,the Federal Council stated: " The Christian ideal calls for hearty support of a planned economic system.... It demands that cooperation shall replace compet.i.tion as a fundamental method."

At a full meeting in Indianapolis in December,1932, the Federal Council adopted unanimously this Socialist creed: "-The churches should stand for social planning and control of the credit and monetary system and the economic processes.

The following year,1933,the Council officially declared: "The Christian conscience can be satisfied with nothing less than the complete subst.i.tution of motives of mutual helpfulness and good will for the motive of private gain."

The Federal Council was so flagrantly a mouthpiece for the gospel according to St. Stalin that it was forced to change its name. It became the National Council of Churches which today claims to represent some forty million Protestants. While less p.r.o.ne to praising the Soviets as openly as its predecessor, the NCC has repeatedly been denounced by fundamentalist Christian organizations for its slavish adherence to promoting radical socialism and its lovey-dovey att.i.tude toward Moscow. Today, after forty years of a.s.siduous anti Americanism and the promotion of totalitarian government at home and abroad, the NCC still enjoys the largesse of the Family Rockefeller. Its past president J. Irwin Miller is a perennial Rockefeller front man and a trustee of the Ford Foundation.*

*The NCC has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy arms for revolutionary Communist groups in Africa. These arms are used by the Communists to slay Christians, while thousands of American clergymen look the other way. If this is not murder by proxy, what is it?

Through its multiple foundations the Rockefeller family invested its money where it would have the most influence and do the family the most good. And by far the chief beneficiaries of its -charities- have been the Rockefellers.

The question that is racing through the mind of most readers at this point undoubtedly is why the Rockefellers, considered the world's foremost capitalists, have spent hundreds of millions of dollars financing their alleged enemies, the socialists.

One would a.s.sume that, since the Rockefellers are thought of as capitalists, they would have used their fortune to foster the philosophy of individual liberty. But, just the opposite is true. We have been unable to find a single project in the history of the Rockefeller foundations which promotes free enterprise.

Indeed, except in the fields of health and science (and some of these grants are highly questionable) almost all of the Rockefeller grants have been used directly or indirectly to promote economic and social collectivism, i.e., Socialism-Fascism.

Reasonable men ask what could Motivate the Rockefellers to finance collectivist efforts which seem so totally at odds with their own interests. They forget that John D. Rockefeller was a Machiavellian who boasted that he hated compet.i.tion. Whenever he could, Rockefeller used the government to promote his own interests and to hinder his compet.i.tors. Monopoly capitalism is impossible unless you have a government with the power to strangle would-be compet.i.tors.

The easiest way to control or eliminate compet.i.tors is not to best them in the marketplace, but to use the power of government to exclude them from the marketplace. If you wish to control commerce, banking, transportation, and natural resources on a national level, you must control the federal government. If you and your clique wish to establish worldwide monopolies, you must control a World Government.

The Rockefellers are not humanitarians; they are power-seeking Machiavellians. They are using. their phony philanthropy as a guise for seizing power on a magnitude that would make old John D. Sr. proud.

On to chapter five

Chapter Five.

Yes, Virginia, There is an Establishment.

In previous chapters we have seen that the Rockefellers exercise tremendous leverage over business, banking, and the economy. In the last chapter we showed how the family has used that money to set themselves up in the charity business, and then used their influence through their giveaways to guide education, religion, and the media-and therefore public opinion-along the proper course. Proper for the Rockefellers, that is The perfect situation, from the Rockefellers' point of view, is to combine their economic muscle and their political oomph so that one hand washes the other. They have mastered to a frightening degree the art of using economic power to build political power which enhances economic power even further, and so on, ad infinitum.

We have seen that the Rockefellers have spent generations developing an economic consortium that is the sleekest, smoothest, and most powerful combine on earth. The incredibly powerful political complex the Rockefellers have put together makes their economic activities look like the naive simplicity of a backwoods general store, and consists of organizations which are thoroughly interlocked with and financed by the House of Rockefeller.

Nelson Rockefeller, the unelected Vice President of the United States, is a leader in the campaign to submerge American sovereignty in a World Superstate. Long-time internationalist Alan Cranston (right) is also an avid promoter of World Government, 'in violation of his oath of office as a US Senator.

''The Rockefellers are the epitome of the nation's permanent Establishment: governments change, economics fluctuate, foreign alliances shift - the Rockefellers prevail.''

-Walter Cronkite CBS Reports At the center of Insider power, influence, and planning in the United States is the pervasive Council on Foreign Relations. Headquartered in the Harold Pratt House on 68th Street in New York City, its members have dominated the last seven Administrations and have complete control of the Ford Administration now. The CFR was created by the Rockefellers and their allies to be the focus of their drive for a "New World Order". While we hate to use the terribly trite cliche about the many arms of the octopus being controlled by the same brain, we apologetically must include it because it is simply the most apt a.n.a.logy.

Some of these organizations, although they are very influential in government, are virtually unknown to the average citizen. Others you may hear cited by the media a, a source for an important opinion or - inside information, about some national or international event. What you definitely are not told is that you are hearing the voice of Rockefeller under dozens of different guises from the family's loyal army of ventriloquists.

Collectively, this group of individuals and organizations is known as the Eastern Liberal Establishment; the key figures in it are often referred to as Insiders.

The keystone of the entire Establishment arch is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The leadership of the CFR is the equivalent to the brain of the octopus. David Rockefeller is chairman of the board of the CFR. lt is impossible to comprehend fully the interlock of Rockefeller power without being aware of the all-pervasive influence of the Council. So important is this organization that we will devote the rest of this chapter to it. And throughout the rest of this book we shall designate its members by putting CFR in parentheses after their names.The Council on Foreign Relations, headquartered in New York City, is composed of an elite of approximately 1600 of the nation's Establishment Insiders in the fields of high finance, academics, politics, commerce, the foundations, and the ma.s.s media. The names of many of it members are household words; others, equally important, are less familiar. (For example, you may not recognize the name Harold Geneen. But when you hear he is chairman of the board of directors of IT & T, you can be a.s.sured he is a very big wheel indeed.) Although the membership of the CFR is a veritable "Who's Who" in big business and the media, probably only one person in a thousand is familiar with the organization itself and even fewer are aware of its real purposes.

During its first fifty years of existence, the CFR was almost never mentioned by any of the moguls of the ma.s.s media. And when You realize that the membership of the CFR includes top executives from the New York Times,the Washington Post,the Los Angeles Times, the Knight newspaper chain, NBC, CBS, Time, Life, Fortune, Business Week, US News & World Report,and many others, you can be sure that such anonymity is not accidental; it is deliberate.

For fifty years the CFR operated like the Invisible Man in the novel by H.G. Wells. In 1962, Dan Smoot's pioneering study, The Invisible Government, was successfully smothered by the paper curtain.

Although its results were visible everywhere, the CFR seemed not to exist.

Then in 1972,two separate exposures of the Limousine Liberals of the CFR were published: None Dare Call It Conspiracy by this author, and The Naked Capitalist by Professor W. Cleon Skousen, former a.s.sistant to J. Edgar Hoover. Although both books were completely ignored by the Establishment's captive book review organs, both became nationwide bestsellers because of widespread interest in them at the gra.s.s roots level.

The fact that George Wallace was planning to seize upon the Council and its power, as an election-year issue in his third party candidacy for President, also contributed to the partial lifting of the cloak of secrecy which has surrounded the CFR. Obviously antic.i.p.ating even more attention to the Council, two very similar articles on the CFR appeared in the New York Times and New York magazine. The strategy was to admit that the Council on Foreign Relations has long acted as the unelected super government of the United States, but to maintain that it was always motivated by altruism, idealism, and selfless devotion to the public good. Moreover, the articles claimed, the CFR has, at least momentarily, withdrawn to the sidelines. Still, as John Franklin Campbell admitted in his magazine article: Practically every lawyer, banker, professor, general, journalist and bureaucrat who has had any influence on the foreign policy of the last six Presidents-from Franklin Roosevelt to Richard Nixon-has spent some time in the Harold Pratt House, a four-story mansion on the corner of Park Avenue and 68th Street, donated 26 years ago by Mr. Pratt's widow [an heir to the Standard Oil fortune] to the Council on Foreign Relations, Inc....

If you can walk - or be carried - into the Pratt House, it usually means that you are a partner in an investment bank or law firm-with occasional a.s.signments in government. You believe in foreign aid, NATO, and a bipartisan foreign policy. You've been pretty much running things in this country for the last 25 years, and you know it. [Emphasis added]

Establishment apologist Anthony Lukas, writing in the New York Times magazine, also admitted that the Insiders of the Council have been responsible for our disastrous foreign policy over the past twenty- five years: From 1945 well into the sixties, Council members were in the forefront of America's globalist activism: the United Nations organizational meeting in San Francisco (John Mccloy, Hamilton Fish Armstrong, Joseph Johnson, Thomas Finletter and many others),* as amba.s.sadors to the world body (Edward Stettinius, Henry Cabot Lodge, James Wadsworth and all but three others); the US occupation in Germany (Lucius Clay as military governor, McCloy again and James Conant as High Commissioners); NATO (Finletter again, Harlan Cleveland, Charles Spofford as US delegates).

For the last three decades, American foreign policy has remained largely in the hands of men - the overwhelming majority of them Council members-whose world perspective was formed in World War II and in the economic reconstruction's and military security programs that followed.... The Council was their way of staying in touch with the levels of power ....

One of the "many other" CFR members active in the founding of the UN, whom Mr. Lukas did not mention, was the notorious traitor, perjurer, and Soviet agent, Alger Hiss, who actually served as Secretary General of the San Francisco meeting.

Prior to this time the number of stories about the CFR appearing in the ma.s.s media could be counted on the fingers of one hand. One of these early articles appeared in Harper's magazine in July 1958, and it is revealing to look at it now because its author, "Liberal" columnist Joseph Kraft, was himself a member of the CFR, and he was obviously directing his message to potential members of the Establishment's exclusive circle. Describing the influence of the CFR, Kraft said: It has been the seat of ... basic government decisions, has set the context for many more, and has repeatedly served as a recruiting ground for ranking officials.

It is worth noting that Kraft called his article "School for Statesmen" -an admission that the members of the Council learn a "line-of strategy to be pursued in Washington".

Indeed, the CFR has served as a virtual employment agency for the federal government, under both Democrat and Republican administrations. In his New York Times magazine article, Anthony Lukas observed:. . . everyone knows how fraternity brothers can help other brothers climb the ladder of life. If you want to make foreign policy, there's no better fraternity to belong to than the Council..." This - fraternity- of Insiders has been so successful that its members have virtually dominated every administration in Washington since the days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

CFR members occupied the major policy-making positions, especially in the field of foreign relations, under Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon; and they are just as powerful today, under the Administration of Gerald Ford.

As Joseph Kraft phrased it: " the Council plays a special part in helping to bridge the gap between the two parties, affording unofficially a measure of continuity when the guard changes in Washington."

George Wallace made famous the slogan that there is not a dime's worth of difference between the Democrat and Republican parties. Many observers have noted that while the two parties use different rhetoric and aim their spiels at differing segments of the population, it seems to make little difference who actually wins the election. The reason for this is that while gra.s.s roots. Democrats and Republicans generally have greatly differing views on the economy, political policies, and federal activities, as you climb the sides of the political pyramid the two parties become more and more alike. The reason their dime's worth of difference is that instead of having two distinctly different groups called Democrats and Republicans, we actually have Rockedems and Rockepubs.Every four years the Americans have the privilege of choosing between the Rockepubs candidate and the Rockedems standard bearer. In 1952 and 1956, CFR Adlai Stevenson challenged CFR Eisenhower.

In 1960, it was CFR Nixon vs. CFR Kennedy. In 1964, the conservative wing of the COP stunned the Establishment by nominating its candidate over Nelson Rockefeller. At which point Rockefeller and the CFR wing proceeded to picture Barry Goldwater as a dangerous radical who would abolish Social Security, drop atom bombs on Hanoi, and in general be a reincarnation of the Fascist dictator Mussolini.

The CFR Rockepubs drew up the indictment, the Rockedems prosecuted the case, and. Goldwater went down to ignominious defeat-without ever understanding how he had been sandbagged by the leaders of his own party.

Having disposed of the challenge to the Establishment in 1964, the CFR was firmly back in the saddle in 1968. That year CFR Nixon was "-pitted-against CFR Humphrey. The 1972"-contest " featured CFR Nixon vs. CFR Mc Covern. The Rockefellers were sure to win no matter which candidate emerged victorious.

In recent years, Establishment apologists would have you believe that the CFR was thrust into the cold by Richard Nixon (one such article was even t.i.tled "-The Death Rattle of the Eastern Establishment-).

Such protestations are about as sincere as Br'er Rabbit begging not to be thrown into the briar patch.

The truth is that Nixon was completely under the thumb of the CFR, and served his masters faithfully- until they abandoned him to open the White House doors for Nelson Rockefeller as an unelected Vice President. At the beginning of his Administration, Nixon placed at least 115 CFR members in key positions in the Executive Branch an all-time high for any President. The vast majority of these men are still around today, running the Ford Administration.

Perhaps the most important and certainly the most prominent of all these Establishment Insiders is Henry Kissinger.

No man alive could more effectively represent the Council on Foreign Relations than Herr Kissinger, who for all practical purposes has emerged as the a.s.sistant President of the United States. Kissinger was a Rockefeller man, serving on the staff of the CFR, when he received his appointment to the Nixon Administration.

Kissinger has long recognized how much he owes to the Council on Foreign Relations. In the preface to his book The Necessity For Choice, published in 1961, he said: Five years ago, the Council on Foreign Relations gave me my first opportunity to work systematically on problems of foreign relations. My relations with it have remained close and my admiration for it has, if anything, increased.

Consider: In 1956,Kissinger was an obscure German immigrant who was a mere professor at Harvard University. In less than twenty years, he has become so powerful that he survives the dismissal of his ostensible boss, and apparently tells presidents, prime ministers, and other potentates what to say and do.