Redux--- The Shadow Government: A Bit of History

This is from Professor Carroll Quigley--- the late and renowned macro-historian who was Bill Clinton's mentor at Georgetown University---and was written about 45 years ago  [Now, 53 years ago; I first wrote this in 2007].  Following are excerpts from his book, Tragedy and Hope (1966)---
[All emphasis added...below.]

"There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Group has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so... 

"I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960's, to examine its papers and secret [private] records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments...

"[A] front organization, called the Royal Institute of International Affairs, had as its nucleus in each area the existing submerged Round Table Group. In New York it was known as the Council on Foreign Relations and was a front for J.P. Morgan and Company in association with the very small American Round Table Group...

"On this basis, which was originally financial and goes back to George Peabody, there grew up in the twentieth century a power structure between London and New York which penetrated deeply into university life, the press, and the practice of foreign policy...

"In England the center was the Round Table Group, while in the United States it was J.P. Morgan and Company or its local branches in Boston, Philadelphia, and Cleveland...

"The American branch of this 'English Establishment' exerted much of its influence through five American newspapers (The New York Times, New York Herald Tribune, Christian Science Monitor, the Washington Post, and the lamented Boston Evening Transcript )...

" They were gracious and cultured gentlemen of somewhat limited social experience who were much concerned with the freedom of expression of minorities and the rule of law for all, who constantly thought in terms of Anglo-American solidarity, of political partition and federation, and who were convinced that they could gracefully civilize the Boers of South Africa, the Irish, the Arabs, and the Hindus, and who are largely responsible for the partitions of Ireland, Palestine, and India, as well as the federations of South Africa, Central Africa, and the West Indies...

"It was this group of people, whose wealth and influence so exceeded their experience and understanding, who provided much of the frame-work of influence which the Communist sympathizers and fellow travelers took over in the United States in the 1930's...

"It must be recognized that the power that these energetic Left-wingers exercised was never their own power or Communist power but was ultimately the power of the international financial coterie, and, once the anger and suspicions of the American people were aroused, as they were by 1950, it was a fairly simple matter to get rid of the Red sympathizers...

"Before this could be done, however, a congressional committee, following backward to their source the threads which led from admitted Communists like Whittaker Chambers, through Alger Hiss, and the Carnegie Endowment to Thomas Lamont and the Morgan Bank, fell into the whole complicated network of the interlocking tax-exempt foundations...

The Eighty-third Congress in July 1953 set up a Special Committee to investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations with Representative B. Carroll Reece of Tennessee, as chairman. It soon became clear that people of immense wealth would be unhappy if the investigation went too far and that the 'most respected' newspapers in the country, closely allied with these men of wealth, would not get excited enough about any revelations to make the publicity worth while, in terms of votes or campaign contributions..."

[My point here is to illustrate that those who founded the "Shadow Government" were beyond political party affiliations, right v. left, and all that Propaganda. I believe that is still true today...and today, the Shadow Government is greatly expanded and includes many multi-national corporations, not just those in banking, oil, and newspapers.]

Quigley's book, Tragedy and Hope, quickly was suppressed.  I doubt you can find a copy today.  Finally, keep in mind that the good Professor was not a deranged nutcake; instead, he was well respected and very credible.

Not only my opinion.  Be Well
p.s.  Some years ago, Bill Moyers also did an excellent piece on "The Shadow Government".

Evidence of Oligarchy

At various times throughout the history of the USA, the following men made the following statement (paraphrased) regarding U.S. citizens:
"The ignorant public must not be allowed to truly participate in Government.".
~  James Madison, one of our Founders
~  Walter Lippman, a so-called "Liberal" and known as the Dean of American Journalism
~  Edward Bernays, the author of Propaganda: Molding the Public Mind (1928) and generally recognized as the Founder of the Public Relations industry

Carroll Quigley, a well respected Professor at Georgetown U. and Bill Clinton's mentor, wrote this in 1966:
"The tragedy is that we no longer have a representative government in this country; the hope is that the little people will come to accept that... because there is nothing they can do about it."
From Tragedy and Hope (1966) by Quigley
Professor Quigley considered himself one of the Oligarchs, thus he referred to the rest of us as the "little people".  He had been given unfettered access to the papers of various Institutions and members of the "ruling class" for the purpose of writing his book.  In addition to the above, he claimed that the Council on Foreign Relations (the CFR) was a front for the J.P. Morgan [Chase] Company.  In other words, a mega bank was highly influential in the determination of U.S. Foreign Policy.  Keep in mind that Quigley was not some conspiracy theory nutcake; he was a very well respected historian.  Toward the end of his life, he came to believe that this particular book of his was being suppressed in the United States; however, he never claimed that was any kind of conspiracy.  One thing was clear:  various Oligarchs were not happy with Tragedy and Hope.  It was too revealing.

Alberto Gonzales, the former Bush Attorney General of the U.S., not long ago testified before a Congressional Hearing that "The Constitution does not grant us the Right of Habeas Corpus; therefore, the Gov't doesn't necessarily have to observe it."  [The U.S. Constitution DOES NOT GRANT us any Rights whatsoever; instead, it protects the Natural Rights we acquire at birth.  Governments cannot grant Rights, only privileges.  Natural Rights are held by people completely independent of any government.  That is a very well established principle dating at least as far back as the Magna Carta.]

Not long after the Gulf Oil Disaster of fairly recent history, the International Head of BP Oil (can't remember his name) stated in a news interview:  "I can understand how the small people [the Gulf residents] would feel that way."  That was in response to a newsperson stating that the people along the Gulf coast felt that BP was not doing enough regarding the spill.  I clearly recall the guy making that statement on TV; I was truly astounded.  His condescension was palpable.

Those are but a very few snippets of evidence (or at the very least, powerful suggestions) that this country is subject to the rule of Oligarchs.  I believe the same applies to most other countries in the world as well.  I suspect that many people don't believe it's true because they keep drinking the Propaganda Kool Aid.  Part of that Kool Aid is the misinformation that the whole business is just another "conspiracy theory".  I again emphasize:  it's not a conspiracy.  It's in plain sight for the most part.  It's more along the lines of super-rich people having similar interests and objectives (power & money), working sometimes independently of each other and sometimes cooperatively to reach mutual goals.  Simply because they don't go out of their way to reveal their methods does not mean that the whole thing is some sort of conspiracy.  The phrase "conspiracy theory" is used by Oligarchs and their dupes to squash serious discussion of controversial subjects.  More often than not, it works well.

Happy Trails

Globalization: Part II, Players and Methods

The Players---

I'm sure you gathered from reading Part I that the IMF and World Bank are key players in the process of Globalization. [I consider them quasi-governmental bodies, rather than non-governmental.] Add to that the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve, as well as the central banks of most of the other industrialized countries. It is believed by many serious writers that the IMF/World Bank are merely extensions of the policies of the U.S. Treasury, the Fed Reserve, U.K.'s Treasury, and the U.K.'s Bank of England.

While the above institutions are important, they are no more important than the non-governmental bodies: the transnational mega corporations, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR, founded in 1922) and its U.K. counterpart, the Royal Institute of International Affairs (aka, Chatham House), and the Trilateral Commission (founded in 1973 by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski). The CFR and Chatham House are the anglophile Round Table Groups, described in the late Professor Carroll Quigley's 1966 book, Tragedy and Hope. The best quote from the book: "The tragedy is that we no longer have a representative government in this country, or any country; the hope is that the little people will come to accept that, because there is nothing they can do about it." Again...it was published in 1966. Quigley also claimed that the CFR was a front for the J.P. Morgan Company; keep in mind that the good professor (Bill Clinton's mentor at Georgetown University) was a very well respected historian and scholar.

In 1991, David Rockefeller stated publicly, "Surely it is preferable to have the world run by unelected, supranational, [business] elites rather than the nations of the past with their corrupt politicians." That is the goal of Globalization. The function of groups such as the CFR, Chatham House, and the Trilateral Commission is to provide the philosophical underpinnings, the unquestionable academic justifications, for the governmental policies that result in the implementation of Globalization. Consequently, the CFR publishes academic-level papers such as Building a North American Community (meaning, the North American Union), The End of National Currency, Bretton Woods II: Does the World Need a New Monetary System? (authored by Larry Summers, Obama's chief economic advisor), and Global Economic Governance. The Trilateral Commission pens scholarly papers such as Global Governance, Global Redistribution of Power, and Sovereignty and Intervention. The tremendous influence of these groups on governmental policy cannot be overstated; for all intents and purposes, essentially they formulate most of our nation's foreign policy and perhaps a good deal of our monetary policy.

The Methods---

There seems to be no particular chronological order to these methods; at times one must precede another, but mostly they are all taking place more or less simultaneously. I'll list them here, then expand on each one later: selection of Globalist candidates for national office, and then the marketing of them; introduction and justification of Globalist policies to the intellectual elite of the country; use of IMF/World Bank "Structural Adjustment Programs", thus facilitating U.S. corporate expansion to poor countries; Trade Agreements and the WTO (World Trade Organization); the use of "Economic Hit Men"; facilitating coups in uncooperative countries; the maintenance of approximately 800 U.S. military bases on foreign soil; and finally, invasion of uncooperative countries (which is a last resort).

Here's what a national election amounts to in the U.S.: the heads of transnational corporations and other members of the Oligarchy/ Corporatocracy, having identified and groomed pre-selected candidates from the two major parties, make massive campaign contributions (indirectly, through PACs) to both. One candidate or the other may be favored from time to time, but generally either one will do. [There is arguably only one major political party in the U.S.: the Transnational Mega Business Party, with a Republican faction and a Democrat faction.] As FDR once wrote to a friend, "In this country, candidates are selected, not elected." The campaign contributions are necessary because the candidates must be marketed to the voting public, and that requires expensive PR firms and multi-media advertising. PR firms run campaigns, not the DNC, DLC, or RNC. The public usually is not bothered with any details regarding Globalization.

Globalist policies must be "sold" to the intellectual elites because those elites are extremely influential in the Corporate Media, educational institutions, various community groups, the entertainment industry, and government at all levels. A relatively small percentage of the American public actually pays attention to important public matters, and it's useful to have them supportive of Globalist tools, e.g., NAFTA. As mentioned above, the intellectual think tanks (CFR, etc.) "justify" policies and tools to the intelligentsia via scholarly papers and even books. Often the mainstream, Corporate Media present summaries of think tank ideas to the general public.

A key method in terms of the Third World is to convince poor countries to take on massive IMF/World Bank loans...for "development". Attached to each loan or interest reduction on a previous loan are conditions, Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs), which require actions such as: cutting gov't expenditures, devaluing the currency, privatization of State-owned enterprises, lifting of trade restrictions, enhancing the rights of foreign investors, gearing the economy to exports, and removing price controls and/or State subsidies. Critics have referred to this as virtual extortion. As a consequence, Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) have replaced SAPs; however, their contents more often than not turn out to be essentially the same as the old SAPs. The money loaned doesn't go to job development or farm aid, rather it ends up in the wallets of companies such as Bechtel, Hochtief, or Halliburton. They are hired to build ports (for those exports), roads (to get the goods to the ports), water systems, and other infrastructure.

The use of Trade Agreements such as NAFTA to implement Globalization requires no discussion, except to say that there is some controversy regarding the status of NAFTA. Canada and Mexico claim that it's a Treaty; however, it received only 61 votes in the Senate. A treaty requires the approval of 67 Senators. Whether or not it's a Treaty is important because Treaties override U.S. laws.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) plays a major role in the implementation of Globalization. The WTO, headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, began in 1995 (replacing GATT) and is the only international body dealing with trade between and among nations. It makes the rules for 97% of all world trade, and publishes research papers such as, The WTO and Direct Taxation. No country can override the WTO's rules. Some critics have called the WTO an embryo world government, and claim that it favors rich countries over poor ones. In any case, it has impacted the sovereignty of member countries. A "treaty" of the WTO, the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), extended the world trading system to include the service sector; all WTO members are signatories to GATS. The GATS Treaty is the primary tool of the WTO for the implementation of privatization of services such as municipal water delivery and delivery of electricity.

Economic hit men (a la John Perkins, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man) are used to essentially extort/blackmail uncooperative countries, primarily poor countries. The "hit man" will point out to the leader of the country that his country has a World Bank/IMF loan that cannot possibly be repaid, thus the leader needs to do one or more of a number of things, such as voting a certain way in the U.N. on some issue, or favoring some private contractor regarding a large in-country project bidding process. "Oh, by the way, here's $100,000 for your trouble." Mr. Perkins was never 100% certain who his employer was, but eventually assumed that it was the CIA. His book was a NYT bestseller.

Coups as a tool of Globalization should be self-explanatory. The example of Indonesia was given previously. Sukarno would not cooperate with the IMF, so he was booted out. [Same thing with Allende in Chile.] The dictator Suharto in Indonesia allowed U.S. companies to move in and utilize virtual sweatshops for the manufacture of goods for stores such as the GAP and Old Navy. The U.S. and U.K. have participated in coups in fifty countries since 1953, when the CIA engineered the ousting of the democratically elected leader of Iran and installed the Shah. The Shah purchased millions of dollars of armaments from the U.S. and, of course, supplied us with a portion of our oil requirement.

The maintenance of about 800 U.S. military bases around the world is tied in to the final method: invasion of uncooperative countries as a last resort. A prime example is Operation Just Cause, the invasion of Panama in 1989. The dictator Noriega had become uncooperative, especially relative to Nicaragua, thus his drug informant days for the CIA were used as an excuse to invade...without admitting that he was a CIA operative. It all came out a few years later in a few books and the documentary film, Deception in Panama. At the time of the invasion, George Bush the elder was President here, Dick Cheney was the Secretary of Defense, and Colin Powell was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Other examples include our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. While 9-11 provided a fortuitous reason for the invasion of Afghanistan, Taliban representatives were told months before that date, "If you don't accept our carpet of gold [for a pipeline easement across Afghanistan], we'll give you a carpet of bombs." (According to a whistleblower) Plus, according to Brzezinski in 1998, control of Afghanistan, Iraq, Uzbekistan (where we now have a military base) and a number of other -stans in Central Asia was a "geostrategic imperative for American primacy". Read into that what you will. In the case of Iraq (which, even according to Bush, had nothing to do with 9-11), Saddam, our former ally, had become uncooperative relative to the petro-dollar. Prior to the invasion, he was on the verge of accepting Euros for oil. If allowed to proceed, that would have ended the petro-dollar and the dollar as the world's reserve currency. That, in turn, most likely would have resulted in a series of events ending with the collapse of our dollar. Plans to invade Iraq were formulated months before 9-11. Saddam, our big buddy in the '80s, had to go. [In the '80s, we supplied him with weapons in order to punish Iran for the overthrow of the Shah and the holding of American hostages. The result was the eight-year Iraq-Iran war.]

In Part III of this series, key understandings will be presented in order to tie everything together. In addition, there will be more on Latin America.

Government-Speak and Iraq

Remember "Doublespeak" from Orwell's book, 1984? That's "Government-Speak" in my title above. An example would be one of today's headlines: "Final U.S. Combat Troops Leaving Iraq". Really? The qualifier is: 50,000 "support" troops remain in Iraq. 50,000. Support troops apparently are trainers and/or advisors to the Iraqis.

It has been quite awhile since I served in the Army, but I'm fairly certain of one thing regarding Iraq. There are not 50,000 trainers/advisors left there. At most, my best guess is that there are about 5,000 such troops left in Iraq. The remaining 45,000 or so are combat troops waiting for orders to resume combat, if necessary. They are similar to the troops we still have in Korea, Germany, etc.

At the same time that "combat troops are leaving Iraq", that country's infrastructure is barely functioning. Electricity runs for only about two to five hours per day, and then only in bursts of approximately fifteen minutes at any one time. Safe drinking water is not always available. On top of that, Iraq does not now have a functioning government. Another election was held not long ago, but there was no clear majority, and the various factions have not yet formed a central government. Meanwhile, insurgents have ramped up attacks via suicide car bombs, IEDs (improvised explosive devices) and murder by gunshot. It's not exactly a stable situation.

Don't misunderstand, I'm very happy that about 10,000 more troops have left Iraq. I wish they all had left. My fear is that our Fed Government will be sending those 10,000 (plus a lot more) back before too long. I also suspect that many of my fellow citizens now will think that the Iraq quagmire is "wrapped up", over. I don't think that's the case. My guess is that it's a temporary withdrawal due to politics: Americans currently are fed up with both wars.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and several other -stans in Central Asia make up a big part of Zbigniew Brzezinski's, The Grand Chessboard, American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (a 1998 book). Brzezinski, a true Globalist, along with David Rockefeller co-founded the Trilateral Commission (TC) in 1973. The TC is a Globalist, intellectual think tank which shares ideas and leadership regarding the problems and implementation of Globalism. In my opinion, The Grand Chessboard is the driving force behind our Government's foreign policy, and has been since about 1999.

I firmly believe that the Globalists in DC are drowning us in Government-Speak, especially regarding Iraq, Afghanistan, and the other -stans. We are not there primarily because of our desire to "spread democracy", or because of terrorist threats to America, or because certain foreign leaders are brutal. [We were very happy to be dealing with Saddam, the Taliban, and the Shah of Iran, all brutal dictators, when they were cooperating with us relative to oil, pipeline routes, and the continuance of the petro-dollar.] We are there to secure natural resources, transportation routes for those resources, and to preserve the almighty petro-dollar. Most importantly, it doesn't matter relative to this situation whether Republicans or Democrats are in power in DC. Both parties have been co-opted by the Globalists. [And no...it's not a conspiracy; it's right out in the open. Do a search for the membership of the TC, and one for the membership of the CFR. Conservatives may be surprised to learn that Dick Cheney once was the Director of the Council on Foreign Relations, the CFR.]

Saddam, our former ally, was preparing to accept Euros for oil just prior to our last invasion of Iraq. That's why he had to go. Had he been allowed to proceed, that would have been the end of the petro-dollar, and the end of the dollar as the world's reserve currency. That, in turn, would have meant total bankruptcy for the U.S. Our fiat dollar has virtually no value, except for the fact that it is the world's reserve currency. If and when that ends, the dollar most likely will collapse.

A few months before 9-11, representatives of the Taliban were invited here to negotiate a pipeline route across Afghanistan, needed by Big Oil. We knew how brutal they were, but no one in the Government squawked over that then. According to one whistleblower and intelligence agent, the Taliban were told, "If you don't accept our carpet of gold [for a pipeline easement], we'll give you a carpet of bombs."

As a serious observer of American politics for over half a century, I've noticed that with each passing decade national politicians have become more and more Orwellian. The Government-Speak now is nothing short of astounding, and the frequency of it is overwhelming. With unmitigated hubris, the Republican and Democrat Globalists lie to us...and with a completely straight face. Most of them have no shame whatsoever. It is my sincere hope that, come November, 99% (there are a few honest ones, but very few) of the incumbents are voted out of office. Please, I beg of you.

Globalization and the Corporatocracy

The controlling Corporatocracy in this country basically is in the process of erasing borders and national sovereignty. The CFR has a paper out (Money, Markets, and Sovereignty) explaining why monetary nationalism is a major threat to globalization, with suggestions on how to eliminate national currencies. They have another paper explaining the needed steps to create a North American Union; the title is Building a North American Community. Both the Clintons AND the Bush Family fully support the idea. The ultimate goal is to eventually merge the European Union, the African Union, the North American Union, etc., etc., into one mega economic structure...a world government, but only in terms of economics. Countries will still retain their individual names and "borders", but both will be meaningless as far as finance & economics are concerned.

It's not a conspiracy; it's just maximizing global business. Unfortunately, it will result in re-distributing wealth AWAY from the U.S.---except for the wealth of the Elites. That has already started.

The Corporatocracy doesn't give a hoot-in-hell what we common folk think of all this. There is nothing we can do about it short of a massive boycott of the Fed Govt and mega multi-national companies...and that will never happen.

The whole thing is Cronyism beyond compare. Whether Democrats or Republicans control DC matters not one whit in terms of this "globalization" process. The USA is well on its way to becoming essentially a third world country, with no Middle Class...only the super-rich and the relatively poor.

People have dismissed what I've described above mostly because it has been labeled a "conspiracy theory", which is a Machiavellian tactic that is usually successful. But the whole move to "globalization" has been having some really negative effects on our economy, and two things are becoming obvious to everyone: 1. the Middle Class is suffering due to all this; and, 2. the super-rich are getting richer (and more powerful) due to all this. I have hopes that someday common folk will see through the "globalization" charade. I have almost no hope that they'll do anything effective about it.

The Corporatocracy is on a Roll

Headline:

"Government seizes WaMu, sells some assets
Largest bank failure in U.S. history; JPMorgan buys $1.9 billion in assets"

JP Morgan [Chase], a major member of the Corporatocracy, has taken another step in its bid to become the world's most powerful bank. Prediction: it will be, if not the biggest, one of the biggest promoters of the move to a cashless society---digital money. Many people think, oh, that will be convenient; they don't stop to consider the dangers. No transaction (unless it's barter) will be private. The Government will have TOTAL access to your "money". Computer errors will be a nightmare. Your digital chip will not be in your control...e.g., if you're in a dispute with the IRS, your chip could just be turned off. [Yes, presently they can freeze your bank account; but some people now have cash squirreled away in safe deposit boxes, or home safes. That would no longer be an option in a cashless society.]

............................................................................

According to the late and eminent historian, Professor Carroll Quigley (Harvard and Georgetown University), the influential and respected Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is a front for the JP Morgan Company. JP Morgan, also according to Quigley, is the Head of the Round Table Group in the United States. [A different bank is the Head of that Group in the UK.] The Round Table Group (again, according to Quigley), has as its primary purpose the establishment of a world government run by CEOs of multi-national companies. The goal of that unelected government is complete control of world economics and finance. That tends to explain JP Morgan's connection (if Quigley's research is accurate) to the CFR. The CFR is highly influential regarding actions of the World Bank, the acquisition and distribution of U.S. foreign aid, and loans to foreign governments.

............................................................................

All of the above, in my opinion, are incentives to ordinary folks to start accumulating something like silver. No matter what the Government designates as "money", be it paper subject to inflation or "digits", I imagine that many (probably most) businesses would still accept silver or silver certificates in transactions. So if your "chip" is turned off, or if there's a computer error saying you have no digits left, at least you'd still be able to buy groceries, gas, etc. for the period of time it takes to correct the problem.

..........................................................................

Just a few thoughts from an old hermit.

The Shadow Government: A Bit of History

This is from Professor Carroll Quigley, the late and renowned macro-historian, who was Bill Clinton's mentor at Georgetown University---and was written about 45 years ago. Excerpts from his book, Tragedy and Hope (1966):
[All emphasis added.]

"There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Group has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so...

"I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960's, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments...

"[A] front organization, called the Royal Institute of International Affairs, had as its nucleus in each area the existing submerged Round Table Group. In New York it was known as the Council on Foreign Relations and was a front for J.P. Morgan and Company in association with the very small American Round Table Group...

"On this basis, which was originally financial and goes back to George Peabody, there grew up in the twentieth century a power structure between London and New York which penetrated deeply into university life, the press, and the practice of foreign policy...

"In England the center was the Round Table Group, while in the United States it was J.P. Morgan and Company or its local branches in Boston, Philadelphia, and Cleveland...

"The American branch of this 'English Establishment' exerted much of its influence through five American newspapers (The New York Times, New York Herald Tribune, Christian Science Monitor, the Washington Post, and the lamented Boston Evening Transcript )...

" They were gracious and cultured gentlemen of somewhat limited social experience who were much concerned with the freedom of expression of minorities and the rule of law for all, who constantly thought in terms of Anglo-American solidarity, of political partition and federation, and who were convinced that they could gracefully civilize the Boers of South Africa, the Irish, the Arabs, and the Hindus, and who are largely responsible for the partitions of Ireland, Palestine, and India, as well as the federations of South Africa, Central Africa, and the West Indies...

"It was this group of people, whose wealth and influence so exceeded their experience and understanding, who provided much of the frame-work of influence which the Communist sympathizers and fellow travelers took over in the United States in the 1930's...

"It must be recognized that the power that these energetic Left-wingers exercised was never their own power or Communist power but was ultimately the power of the international financial coterie, and, once the anger and suspicions of the American people were aroused, as they were by 1950, it was a fairly simple matter to get rid of the Red sympathizers...

"Before this could be done, however, a congressional committee, following backward to their source the threads which led from admitted Communists like Whittaker Chamber, through Alger Hiss, and the Carnegie Endowment to Thomas Lamont and the Morgan Bank, fell into the whole complicated network of the interlocking tax-exempt foundations...

The Eighty-third Congress in July 1953 set up a Special Committee to investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations with Representative B. Carroll Reece of Tennessee, as chairman. It soon became clear that people of immense wealth would be unhappy if the investigation went too far and that the 'most respected' newspapers in the country, closely allied with these men of wealth, would not get excited enough about any revelations to make the publicity worth while, in terms of votes or campaign contributions..."

[My point here is to illustrate that those who founded the "Shadow Government" were beyond political party affiliations, right v. left, and all that propaganda. I believe that is still true today...and today, the Shadow Government is greatly expanded and includes many multi-national corps, not just those in banking, oil, and newspapers.]

CFR and the NAU

In May of 2005, the Council on Foreign Relations published their 175-page Report, Building a North American Community. Below is an excerpt from the description of the Report, and a link to the CFR webpage of same.

"When the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States met in Texas recently they underscored the deep ties and shared principles of the three countries. The Council-sponsored Task Force applauds the announced 'Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America', but proposes a more ambitious vision of a new community by 2010 and specific recommendations on how to achieve it." [Emphasis added]

http://www.cfr.org/publication/8102/

Those who continue to doubt that plans for the North American Union (NAU) actually exist need to wake up. The United States as we know it soon will be gone.