Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)
Wonder if they are for real? Here's their website. http://www.cfr.org/
From the site they are all about social reforms and rhetoric that embetter mankind. Really? Now they do have an extensive membership list which you can see. http://www.cfr.org/about/membership/roster.html I forbear to list them here as there are simply to many. But whats their agenda?
Here are some quotes from people who served in Government.
"The real rulers in Washington are invisible, and exercise power from behind the scenes."
Felix Frankfurter Associate Supreme Court Justice 1939- 1962
"The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence and submergence into an all powerful, one world government."
- Admiral Chester Ward, former CFR member and Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy
"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."
-David Rockefeller (CFR member), founder of the sister organization - Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991.
"We shall have world government whether or not you like it, by conquest or consent."
-Statement by Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member James Warburg to The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 17th, l950
"The New World Order will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down...but in the end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece will accomplish much more than the old fashioned frontal assault."
-CFR member Richard Gardner, writing in the April l974 issue of the CFR's journal, Foreign Affairs.
"An agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for
long-held promise of a New World Order where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind."
-George Herbert Walker Bush (????!!!)
CFR President Richard Haass, on globalization and sovereignty:
”Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. [UN] States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary.”
”Our notion of sovereignty must therefore be conditional, even contractual, rather than absolute.”
Quotes taken from an address to the CFR: February 17, 2006
Project Syndicate Their Roundtable has connections to the Council on Foreign Relations. Take a look at the quote taken from
Transcript
"The New New World Order"
Speaker: Daniel W. Drezner, Associate Professor of International Politics, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy
Presider: Gideon Rose, Managing Editor, Foreign Affairs
February 26, 2007
Council on Foreign Relations
Listen to the rhetoric then think Rome and City States.
Speaking of the UN, notice that they seem to be a product exclusively of the Committee of 300? What is this UN this UNITED NATIONS? Thier website http://www.un.org/en/
and their logo United Nations: We the peoples... A stronger UN for a better world. (Hey waitaminute! We the peoples????!!!! Thats our line! We the People. But that was to form a .... more perfect union...
" We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. "
In fact please consider that this is what in one way the CFR transcript was alluding to in theory, a UNITED WORLD. ... and a UNITED BUSSINESS???!! Well see for your self. You see you can be a part of our little Roman set up as a business partner.
Business is a critical partner in the United Nations’ efforts to address global challenges. http://business.un.org/en
This website offers a user-friendly process to match business resources with needs from UN organisations. Use it to get ideas and inspiration, tell us what your company would like to do, and we will link you to potential UN partners. Companies interested in a commercial relationship with the UN should proceed to the United Nations Global Marketplace.
Thats right bussiness partners and all of a sudden the CFR rhetoric makes sense. That transcript is a BOARD MEETING FOR A BUSSINESS! Sounds like the UN has a buy out price and them what has deep enough pockets can buy them out! The lucrative global bussiness partnetships are what in part fund the Poltical Entity or are they funding someone else. You see out side the UN building China is a Nation but inside she is a STATE. This whole thing however is modelled after our United States system which is actually just another page out of Old Rome. Oh well history DOES repeat itself but... consider all the people who have tried to take over the world (lets not leave out The Brain... he may be a lab mouse but he tries) Then consider that someone actually SUCEEDED. On october 24 1945 Rome arose from the dead... so to speak.
He apparently has more to say on this, here is the link: http://www.cfr.org/sovereignty/sovereignty-globalisation/p9903?breadcrumb=%2Fissue%2F109%2Fsovereignty
What the President of the CFR had to say is enough. This is Roman thought all over again. IN the speech the thinking is defended by the slaughter in at that time in Darfur and Sudan where apparently ethnic cleansing was going on. Versus Kosovo where other "states" came in violated "sovereighty" and stopped it. The thinking with whats not being stopped is "see this is the price for holding sovereignty to highly" What bothers me is that Sovereignty has to be compromised at all. Why not United NATIONS, not states ... nations that draft policy to deal with commonwealth concerns. That help each other maintain things and intervene where questionable conduct is happening like in Kosovo. (ok I am stepping off the soap box. OSOL is not for me to soapbox)
This is a very slick organization. They cover up the reality of who they are very very well. But if you pay attention to the rhetoric therein layest "the rub".
..."The precise is pretty simple. If you take a look at any sort of measure of power out there, it's quite obvious that China and India are becoming much more powerful. And projections in the future, although the future can always change, but the projections are they will become, you know, among the top five states in terms of economic size or what have you within the next 15 years, 15 to 20 years.
The problem we've got is that most of the really important international institutions that were set up were set up between 1945 and 1955, and China and India were not nearly as powerful back then. This gives rise to an interesting problem, which is how do you cut in rising states to international institutions that have already been set up, that privileged states that are on the decline, such as many that are potentially in the European Union.
You would not think that the Bush administration would be well suited for handling this problem, since the administration -- you know, first impressions are lasting impressions, and the impression of this administration has been it's a belligerent, unilateralist foreign policy course of action. And yet the funny thing is that if you take a look at what the U.S. has done over the past five years or so, they've taken several steps to try to cut in the Chinese and the Indians into international regimes that the U.S. had set up with the idea that if we can cut them in, they might actually in the end want what we want and support what we want.
The piece then reviews a variety of ways in which we've done this in the IMF, in the non-proliferation regime, both bilaterally and multilaterally, and on the whole gives the administration, you know, a decent grade in terms of doing this. Now certain things have handicapped it.
One is the fact that it's easy to paint this administration as unilateralist and belligerent, and as a result, there are ways in which, even if it's doing things for the right reasons, it might be accused by some states of doing things for the wrong reasons. So therefore, this creates a lot of suspicion.
The second problem which was going to be inevitable to this enterprise is that if you're trying to cut in rising powers, sort of by the nature of power you're undercutting states that are falling, and the states in this case are the members of the European Union. And while they see the handwriting on the wall as well, you know, it's not like France and Great Britain are going to be giving up their U.N. Security Council seats any time soon."...
OK I have put in bold and bold with italics the dead giveaway words. States... cut in and undercut... First off look at that term states. Rising states refers to China and India. Uh last I looked at a globe of the world, those were Countries. Countries with their own goevernments and militaries and economies and industries and agricultures and... wait. They DO have all this and more but they are also part of that NEW GLOBAL COMMUNITY of ours. Aren't they members of the UN? Either way, they are supposed to be considered.... COUNTRIES. States are what happens in The Roman Empire wherein many once sovereign countries yield to a larger more potent Ruling force ... like Rome. Suddenly I have a whole new consideration. City States...
Do the research yourselves and see... Is our UN and CFR and these other lovely little "good for humanity and the forward progression of all mankind" groups just a Senate or Synod of Roman thought and the Nations are now City States?????!!!!
Next Cut in and Undercut etc.... what the heck???? That sounds like a business. Cutting in for a share of the profits. Now look... business with profits puts our service or comodity thats it. So what is the CFR either doing or producing? Finally my eye caught the line I put into italics ..."they might actually in the end want what we want and support what we want."... what do they want? ( Is this The Brain?!) Ahh yes and by the by folks the new buzz word is apparently GLOBAL.... not NEW WORLD ORDER. Either way something smells rotten in Denmark.... another state in the UN?
By the way folks, this group is admittedly founded by its sister group the Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA).