How Rockefeller Wrecked America - Steve Yates (100109)
Mort Zuckerman
gary_w...@nymc.edu, scientifi...@ostp.gov,
pkru...@princeton.edu, Stanle...@fiu.edu,
emcsw...@niaid.nih.gov, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
Spin...@yahoogroups.com, kshe...@calea.org, fit...@gmail.com,
patrick.f...@usdoj.gov, model...@sbcglobal.net,
jdr...@nejm.org, let...@courant.com, Jgerb...@cdc.gov,
michae...@po.state.ct.us, con...@po.state.ct.us, executive-
edi...@nytimes.com, managin...@nytimes.com, news-
ti...@nytimes.com, biz...@nytimes.com, for...@nytimes.com,
nati...@nytimes.com, dv...@cdc.gov, brigidc...@optonline.net,
tr...@hotmail.com, illino...@aol.com, jle...@courant.com,
tinaj...@yahoo.com, jhorn...@fff.org, thomas...@usdoj.gov,
thoma...@po.state.ct.us, kur...@washpost.com,
georg...@washpost.com, p...@allegorypress.com,
commissi...@po.state.ct.us, brans...@comcast.net,
vts...@comcast.net, o...@po.state.ct.us, freet...@charter.net,
scott....@po.state.ct.us, govern...@po.state.ct.us,
attorney...@po.state.ct.us, randall...@usdoj.gov,
Robert....@yale.edu, edi...@greenwich-post.com,
harol...@yale.edu, sedm...@nswbc.org, rrmcg...@aol.com,
fr...@nytimes.com, dpr...@stmartin.edu
Cc: fra...@ucia.gov, dr-ahma...@president.ir,
eugener...@washpost.com, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
bmi...@newstimes.com, tr...@hotmail.com, rast...@aol.com,
billc...@gmail.com, amcg...@rms-law.com, rjmu...@aol.com,
paulcrai...@yahoo.com, sidney_b...@yahoo.com,
criminal...@usdoj.gov, karla.d...@usdoj.gov,
christophe...@usdoj.gov, richar...@yale.edu,
harol...@yale.edu, james.p...@yale.edu, inq...@aldf.com,
ly...@idsociety.org, meganm...@theatlantic.com
Subject: How Rockefeller Wrecked America - Steve Yates (100109)
Date: Jan 9, 2010 4:50 AM
Well, I would argue that these guys *did*
destroy America. The missing ingredient
in their sorcery = intelligence.
But even the Rockefellers *themselves* will
tell you that brains was never in their DNA.
They have a weird love-hate relationship with
intelligence. And this anguish is their engine.
http://www.actionlyme.org
====================================
http://www.newswithviews.com/Yates/steven143.htm
THE FOUR CARDINAL ERRORS THAT ALMOST DESTROYED AMERICA
PART 5
By Professor Steven Yates
January 9, 2010
NewsWithViews.com
[Author’s note: this article is dedicated to the memory of William C.
Yates Jr.—World War II Submarine Veteran, patriot, and devoted husband
to my mother and father to my sister and myself—who passed away on
December 23, 2009 at age 86.]
I.
The twentieth century saw the rise of new institutions for the
financial domination of nations. The Bank for International
Settlements was founded in 1930. Its two main founders were Hjalmar
Schacht, a Rhodes Round Tabler who later became Hitler’s Reich
Minister of Economics, and Montagu Norman, Governor of the Bank of
England and a Fabian. The Bank for International Settlements would be
the central bankers’ central bank, and therefore a major power center.
About it Carroll Quigley would write:
“[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far reaching aim,
nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in
private hands able to dominate the political system of each country
and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be
controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world
acting in concert, by secret agreements, arrived at in frequent
private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was the Bank
for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank
owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were
themselves private corporations. The growth of financial capitalism
made possible a centralization of world economic control and use of
this power for the direct benefit of financiers and the indirect
injury of all other economic groups” (Tragedy & Hope, p. 324).
Member central banks of the Bank for International Settlements soon
included all those of Western European nations as well as that of
major Eastern powers such as Japan. Obviously, the Federal Reserve was
a member.
The Fabian Society role is not obvious. For some reason, Quigley was
uninterested in them as a group. Fabians always worked in the
background. They did not seek publicity. They were more interested in
results, and they sought evolution, not revolution. They saw no need
for open coercion when infiltration, persuasion through subterfuge,
and the subtle conditioning of malleable populations would do the job
(penetration and permeation, as we saw in Part 4). Capitalism
certainly appeared to be the ‘incredible bread machine,’ producer of
wealth and prosperity. The Marxian complaint, echoed by the Fabians,
was that capitalism could produce but not distribute equitably. Yet in
this view, it was a crucial step in the evolution of economies—its
establishment a necessary condition for the emergence of genuine
socialism. Genuine socialism, in this view, was not what was had
developed in the Soviet Union, where the Bolsheviks had tried to build
socialism on an agrarian base without having gone through the
capitalist stage. The most that could have happened there, again in
this view, was a corrupt state-capitalism, a system every sane
observer eventually realized was delivering worse injustice and
brutality than anything in the British-American world.
The Fabians therefore began to change their tactics. They sought not
to destroy capitalism but to transform it from within, using devices
we have encountered such as the subversion of education (led by the
Fabian John Dewey) to produce those malleable, manageable masses
instead of informed, independent-minded individuals. The British-
American superelite would further Fabian goals. David Rockefeller Sr.
is arguably among the most powerful and well-connected of today’s
superelites—and very much a capitalist in the new mode. He’d studied
at the Fabian-founded London School of Economics (LSE) in the 1930s
and written a senior thesis entitled Destitution Through Fabian Eyes,
as recounted in his Memoirs (2002, p. 75-76). David Rockefeller’s
vision of a globalized world led him to the helm of the Council on
Foreign Relations and would lead him to assist in founding the
European Bilderberg Group in 1954. He would regularly attend its top-
secret annual meetings which, for several days, would transform plush
hotels into armed enclaves with carefully selected staff members sworn
to secrecy.
He would help found the Council of the Americas in 1965. Eventually,
in the early 1970s, he would read fellow globalist Zbigniew
Brzezinski’s Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era
(1970). This book described history as a process moving away from
“nationalism” (i.e., national sovereignty) through Marxism to a
globalism that would be essentially a merger of capitalism and what
was then called communism. With Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger,
Rockefeller would organize the Trilateral Commission—all the while
continuing in his ongoing role as overlord of the CFR. The Trilateral
Commission propelled Jimmy Carter into the White House and would
maintain a central presence in all subsequent administrations
regardless of party affiliation. All these groups were pursuing Fabian
goals whether the rank and file knew it or not—and most surely did
not. That is, they had become agents of Fabian permeation.
II.
In sum, one envisions the Fabians and those they mentored as having
taken an implicit fresh look at a key Marxian thesis: in order to
create conditions for global socialism, the world needs global
capitalism. The superelite began to think in those terms. Their
efforts shifted from building global socialism to removing all
barriers to an aggressive if micromanaged global capitalism. The
Fabians had had control over the Democratic Party at least since 1960;
John F. Kennedy Jr. had also studied at (where else?) the LSE. The
“liberals” had built on the collectivism of the Rooseveltian welfare
state with the “war on poverty” and such programs as “affirmative
action” for women and minorities. Soon, the false opposition would
appear. By the start of the 1980s we were hearing from
“neoconservatives”—neocons—educated in such hotbeds of Fabian
permeation as New York’s City College and Columbia University (where
Brzezinski had taught). The first wave of neocons penned books with
titles like Two Cheers For Capitalism (1978) by the late Irving
Kristol, father of one of today’s neocon leading lights William
Kristol, and Breaking Ranks by neocon Norman Podhoretz (1980). What
would masquerade as a “conservative” intellectual renaissance began
that would ultimately ruin the Republican Party by the time it had run
its course (2008, end of the Bush II era).
Advertisement
The Reagan years spoke of “morning in America”; the truth was, with
the rise of the neocons the Fabians had begun the capture of the
Republicans. One of the newest mantras would be free trade. It began
with so-called enterprise zones. This idea, to all appearances, was
the brainchild of one Stuart M. Butler—a policy analyst at the
Heritage Foundation, who published two seminal essays on the subject
in 1979 and 1980 respectively. The idea was not Butler’s, however. Sir
Geoffrey Howe, Chancellor of the Exchequer of Great Britain, had
introduced it to Parliament. Howe, in turn, had acquired the idea from
Professor Peter Hall, an urban planner based at Reading University.
Professor Hall had developed the concept of a “freeport” as a means of
developing the depressed inner city—creating unabashedly capitalist
enclaves, within which “workers parties” could also be established.
Professor Hall was a Fabian—on the Society’s executive committee.
The idea would spread among conservatives who assumed it had
originated with one of their own. Howe led the way in merging the idea
with that of the free trade zone, which when enlarged to encompass
multiple nations would dismantle tariffs, customs and duties. Managed
globalist capitalism would be unleashed via so-called free trade
agreements (FTAs). The antecedent to these was, of course, the General
Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) which was signed back in the
1940s as part of the process that included Bretton Woods and the UN,
with the founding of satellite organizations such as the World Bank
and the International Monetary Fund. In theory, globalist free trade
would raise the level of prosperity for all. Economists spoke of
putting “comparative advantage” to work. In practice, it allowed
corporations to move operations to where labor was cheapest, least
organized and least educated; where environmental standards were lax;
and where the cooperation of local officials could be guaranteed
through bribes and other forms of corruption. Wall Street soared; Main
Street suffered. A few analysts led by Paul Craig Roberts would
finally break ranks and offer their theory of “absolute
advantage” (see especially the article he co-authored with Charles
Schumer in the New York Times, Jan. 6, 2004. For a detailed account of
how Fabian-managed globalist capitalism would destroy indigenous
peoples, economies and cultures, see John Perkins, Confessions of an
Economic Hit Man, 2004).
Globalist capitalism in practice, unlike its theoretical classical-
liberal, laissez faire and libertarian images (which many libertarians
unfortunately struggled to maintain), had made peace with Fabian-
derived welfare-statism. It had few qualms about cooperating with
expansionist government—provided, of course, that those in government
embraced globalism. The neocons at its helm in America saw themselves
as the vanguard of a new manifest destiny: taking “liberal democracy”
to the rest of the world, in echo of what Cecil Rhodes had envisioned
for British society almost a century ago. The neocons would form
liaisons of convenience with, e.g., the so-called Religious Right.
Although they were materialists in practice, such a liaison enabled
them to get many of their people elected to office by masquerading as
Christians. Once in office, of course, they continued the secularist
agenda. Example: abortion. Republicans are constantly running on anti-
abortion sentiment. Yet not one Republican elected to high national
office has lifted a finger to stop the practice. Leading neocons have
furthered the New International Economic Order, not Christianity. They
have no more real interest in spiritual matters than they have in
quantum physics.
While we would hear a lot of rhetoric about the need for
competitiveness and the evils of protectionism, there would also be no
more desire for genuine competition among the upper-echelon players
than there had been among the robber barons of the late 1800s. We were
approaching a new turning point, where economic coercion would become
the norm as entire industries were destroyed and people were forced
out of work. The once-thriving textile industry is an example. Former
textile workers were told, in effect, to “reinvent themselves” for the
“jobs of the future” (i.e., cooperate or starve). Almost none
understood what was happening to them. Who were the upper-echelon
players? The ideal participants in this system were multinational and
transnational corporations whose only loyalties were to money and power
—those Brzezinski had lauded back in 1970 in Between Two Ages. They
had none to nationality, and this meant the fulfillment of CFR and
Trilateral Commission member Richard Gardner’s call for the slow
erosion “piece by piece” of national sovereignty (CFR journal Foreign
Affairs article “The Hard Road to World Order,” 1974). It would
shortly be clear to anyone who knew what to look for: the globalist
process being furthered by Fabian-permeated superelites, and the
sovereignty of the U.S. under our Constitution, were on collision
course; also on collision course was this process and the continuation
of a financially independent middle class in America.
The two collisions came with the passage of the North American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1993—yet another pivotal event which had
the support of the Bushes, the Clintons, and even talk-show host Rush
Limbaugh who otherwise bashed Bill Clinton mercilessly (the
incongruity here went unnoticed). What public debate over NAFTA had
taken place was overshadowed by mainstream media reportage on O.J.
Simpson. In such ways America’s masses were easily distracted. NAFTA
went into effect on Jan. 1, 1994, and began a long-term exodus of
millions of manufacturing jobs from the U.S. What replaced them were
so-called “service sector” jobs which required a quite different skill
set and paid considerably less. Since the Federal Reserve was pumping
unprecedented quantities of printing-press money into circulation and
the Dow was soaring to record heights, the economy “boomed.” Further
empowering the boom was the explosion in changing technology including
the cell phone, the Internet, the iPod, and so on. Clearly if you
didn’t have a six-figure job in the newly-emerged, fast-paced tech
sector, it was your own fault! As a result, few people noticed the
seismic shift that was taking place.
While some of the major innovators (e.g., Apple, Microsoft,
Amazon.com) survived, the “tech boom,” built up on the Fed’s credit
expansion, proved unsustainable overall. “Dot-coms” went out of
business by the thousands. The losses in manufacturing jobs continued.
Several writers had begun calling our trade policies a “race to the
bottom” (see Alan Tolenson, The Race to the Bottom, 2002). By the
middle of the decade the number of job losses had risen to over 2.4
million.
Personal debt was skyrocketing, however, as a “housing boom” replaced
the “tech boom”—another unsustainable bubble. When people could not
pay their debts, they were foreclosed on; foreclosures were soon at
record highs. The average American’s savings rate had gone negative.
For part six click below.
Click here for part -----> 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
© 2010 Steven Yates - All Rights Reserved
E-mail This Page
Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale
Steven Yates has a doctorate in philosophy and has taught the subject
at a number of Southeastern colleges and universities. He is the
author of two books: Civil Wrongs: What Went Wrong With Affirmative
Action (1994) and Worldviews: Christian Theism versus Modern
Materialism (2005). His articles and reviews have appeared in refereed
philosophy journals such as Inquiry, Metaphilosophy, Reason Papers,
and Public Affairs Quarterly, as well as on a number of sites on the
Web. He also writes regular columns for a conservative weekly, The
Times Examiner. He lives in Greenville, South Carolina with two
spoiled cats, Bo and Misty
E-Mail: Not Available
"[Real] scientists are *fiercely* independent. That's the good
news."-- NIH's Top Fool, Anthony Fauci