Old-Thinker News | July 1, 2008

By Daniel Taylor

In 1954 the Reece Committee, chaired by Carroll B. Reece, produced its findings regarding the influence of tax-exempt foundations in the field of education.* The report also briefly mentions their influence in politics, propaganda, social sciences and international affairs. The Rockefeller Foundation, Ford

Foundation, Carnegie Foundation and others were discussed during the Committee hearings.

The Reece Committee was smeared by the media and by John D. Rockefeller the 3rd himself as being wholly inaccurate, but historical hindsight gives us a perspective that shows what the Committee found is far closer to the truth than Rockefeller would have you believe.

A predominant theme found in the Committee’s findings is the desire of the foundations and those behind them to create a system of world governance. The use of propaganda and social engineering was identified as a means to and end to achieve this goal. In 1932, the president of the Rockefeller Foundation, Max Mason, stated that “The social sciences… will concern themselves with the rationalization of social control…”

The Committee cited a report from the President’s Commission on Higher Education, published in 1947, which outlines the goals of social engineering programs; The realization on part of the people of the necessity of world government “…psychologically, socially and… politically”. The cited report states,

“In speed of transportation and communication and in economic interdependence, the nations of the globe are already one world; the task is to secure recognition and acceptance of this oneness in the thinking of the people, as that the concept of one world may be realized psychologically, socially and in good time politically. It is this task in particular that challenges our scholars and teachers to lead the way toward a new way of thinking. There is an urgent need for a program for world citizenship that can be made a part of every person’s general education. It will take social science and social engineering to solve the problems of human relations. Our people must learn to respect the need for special knowledge and technical training in this field as they have come to defer to the expert in physics, chemistry, medicine, and other sciences.” [emphasis added] (p. 483)

Rene A. Wormser, author of the book Foundations: Their Power and Influence, served as counsel for the Committee. Wormser discussed the investigation of the social sciences on part of the foundations – such as the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations – and the influence that they wield.

“Mr. WORMSER. Professor, back to this term “social engineering,” again, is there not a certain presumption, or presumptuousness, on the part of social scientists, to consider themselves a group of the elite who are solely capable and should be given the sole opportunity to guide us in our social development? They exclude by inference, I suppose, religious leaders and what you might call humanistic leaders. They combine the tendency toward the self-generated social engineering concept with a high concentration of power in that interlocking arrangement of foundations and agencies, and it seems to me you might have something rather dangerous.” [emphasis added] (p. 579)

The Committee lists the various organizations who were involved with the Rockefeller Foundation’s investigation of the social sciences. Also identified were other organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations, which have been instrumental in crafting globalist policy.

“When the Rockefeller Foundation turned to the social sciences and the humanities as the means to advance the “well-being” of humanity, the section entitled “Social Sciences” in the annual report was set up under the following headings, which remained unchanged until 1935: General Social Science Projects : Cooperative Undertakings.

Research in Fundamental Disciplines.

Interracial and International Studies.

Current Social Studies.

Research in the Field of Public Administration.

Fundamental Research and Promotion of Certain Types of Organization.

Fellowships in the Social Sciences. The report states that the arrangement was for the purpose of “simplification and in order to emphasize the purpose for which appropriations have been made.” In the decade 1929-38 the foundation’s grants to social-science projects amounted to $31 .4 millions and grants were made to such agencies as the Brookings Institution, the Social Science Research Council, the National Research Council, the Foreign Policy Association, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Institute of Pacific Relations in this country as well as a dozen or more in other countries, and the Fiscal Committee of the League of Nations.” (p. 879)

A campaign to smear the Reece Committee began shortly after it was released. John D. Rockefeller the 3rd himself responded to the findings of the Committee, flatly denying that the Rockefeller foundation or any of the organizations that it has given money to has ever advocated world government. Rockefeller states,

“If the expression “one-world theories of government” means anything, it means world government. No shred of evidence is presented in the report to show that the Rockefeller Foundation or any of the organizations to which it has made grants has advocated world government.” (p. 1104)

With the advantage of historical hindsight, this claim from Rockefeller is easily debunked. In reality, the Rockefeller family has – from a very early date – promoted globalism and world government, which today is almost a reality. The following are a few examples of Rockefeller influence over the past several decades. Programs of social engineering designed to acclimate the people to globalist policy and goals, combined with pushes for global governance have been pushed on the American people for almost 100 years.

The Interchurch World Movement

An early project of the Rockefeller family was the Interchurch World Movement, started in 1919. John D. Rockefeller Jr., the son of John D. Rockefeller the 3rd, founded the IWM. Charles E. Harvey, professor of history at California State University, wrote a history of the Interchurch World Movement in a 1982 paper titled “John D. Rockefeller, Jr., and the Interchurch World Movement of 1919-1920: A Different Angle on the Ecumenical Movement. The IWM goal was to consolidate the churches into a single organization that would control the direction of the churches as a whole. The IWM, in Rockefeller’s own words had a globalist slant. He writes,

“I do not think we can overestimate the importance of this Movement. As I see it, it is capable of having a much more far-reaching influence than the League of Nations in bringing about peace, contentment, goodwill and prosperity among the people of the earth.”

A revealing letter written by Rockefeller himself showed that he saw a potential for ensured “stability” by gaining control over the churches.

“I know of no better insurance for a businessman for the safety of his investments, the prosperity of the country and the future stability of our government than this movement affords…” [1]

The Federal Council of Churches

A later organization, the Federal Council of Churches, also highlights Rockefeller’s investment in world government promoting organizations.

Not surprisingly, the Federal Council of Churches – which was merged with the National Council of Churches in 1950 – received significant funding from John D. Rockefeller Jr. [1] Using a similar corporate structure of churches that the Interchurch World Movement first pioneered, the program developed several agendas for churches to adopt, with world government named as the ultimate goal. As reported by Time magazine in 1942,

“These are the high spots of organized U.S. Protestantism’s super-protestant new program for a just and durable peace after World War II: >Ultimately, “a world government of delegated powers.” >Complete abandonment of U.S. isolationism. >Strong immediate limitations on national sovereignty. >International control of all armies & navies. > “A universal system of money … so planned as to prevent inflation and deflation.” > Worldwide freedom of immigration. > Progressive elimination of all tariff and quota restrictions on world trade. > “Autonomy for all subject and colonial peoples” (with much better treatment for Negroes in the U.S.). > “No punitive reparations, no humiliating decrees of war guilt, no arbitrary dismemberment of nations.” > A “democratically controlled” international bank “to make development capital available in all parts of the world without the predatory and imperialistic aftermath so characteristic of large-scale private and governmental loans.” This program was adopted last week by 375 appointed representatives of 30-odd denominations called together at Ohio Wesleyan University by the Federal Council of Churches. Every local Protestant church in the country will now be urged to get behind the program. “As Christian citizens,” its sponsors affirmed, “we must seek to translate our beliefs into practical realities and to create a public opinion which will insure that the United States shall play its full and essential part in the creation of a moral way of international living.” [2]

The United Nations

After World War II, John D. Rockefeller Jr. donated the land which holds the United Nations headquarters in New York City with a gift of $8.5 million. The U.N. has served as an outlet for various Rockefeller initiatives since its founding. Steven C. Rockefeller, former chair of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund board of trustees, has been intimately involved with the United Nations Earth Charter. During the early stages of the Earth Charter, he chaired the Earth Charter International Drafting Committee from 1997 to 2000.

The Atlantic Union

Nelson Rockefeller was a major proponent of the Atlantic Union between the United States and Europe. Today, this vision is a step closer to reality with the founding of the Transatlantic Economic Council in 2007. Gary Allen documents Rockefeller’s influence in the push for an Atlantic Union in The Rockefeller File (1976),

“In The Future of Federalism, Noble Nelson proclaimed: No nation today can defend its freedom, or fulfill the needs and aspirations of its own people, from within its own borders or through its own resources alone …. And so the nation-state, standing alone, threatens, in many ways, to seem as anachronistic as the Greek city-states eventually became in ancient times. Get it? The man who could not be elected to the White House, but managed to arrange an entrance there anyway, says that a free and independent United States is now anachronistic. Webster’s defines “anachronism” as something from a former age that is incongruous in the present. Every effective World Government proponent learns early in the game some rhetorical tricks, such as calling black “white.” Nelson Rockefeller is no exception. In the same book, he suggests: The federal idea, which our Founding Fathers applied in their historic act of political creation in the eighteenth century, can be applied in this twentieth century in the larger context of the world of free nations – if we will but match our forefathers in courage and vision.” [1]

The Alliance of Civilizations

As an example of the Rockefeller family’s continued commitment to social sciences and social engineering, the Alliance of Civilizations (AoC) Media Fund program for evaluating psychophysiological responses to media is a good place to start. The AoC is part of the organization’s “Rapid Response Media Mechanism” that is dedicated to oversee and attempt to guide the content of a variety of media outlets including Hollywood. With the goal of creating “…religious and cultural pluralism as a global value”, the AoC is supporting research into “…the process by which images of violence and humiliation affect physiological responses and behavior.” The research will further investigate,

“The use of psychophysiological (skin conductance, heart rate and impedence, hormone levels, etc.) and neuroimaging methods capture activation of the brain and body as individuals interact with media and/or out-group members, shedding light on how individuals’ emotions and beliefs may change — even without their awareness.”

The research will, according to the AoC “…be used to generate policy recommendations for media persons and government officials.” The research is a special project of Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors.

The Alliance of Civilizations’ methods are similar to another U.N. organization, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). UNESCO receives regular grants from the Rockefeller Foundation. In the founding document for the organization, UNESCO Its Purpose and Its Philosophy, Sir Julian Huxley writes,

“Taking the techniques of persuasion and information and true propaganda that we have learnt to apply nationally in war, and deliberately bending them to the international tasks of peace, if necessary utilising them, as Lenin envisaged, to “overcome the resistance of millions” to desirable change. Using drama to reveal reality and art as the method by which, in Sir Stephen Tallent’s words, “truth becomes impressive and living principle of action,” and aiming to produce that concerted effort which, to quote Grierson once more, needs a background of faith and a sense of destiny. This must be a mass philosophy, a mass creed, and it can never be achieved without the use of the media of mass communication. Unesco, in the press of its detailed work, must never forget this enormous fact.”

If there is any doubt as to the Rockefeller family commitment to globalism and world government, take a look at the words of David Rockefeller on page 405 of his Memoirs,

“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

Citation:

*See the full Reece Committee document here: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

The Interchurch World Movement

[1] Harvey, Charles E. John D. Rockefeller, Jr., and the Interchurch World Movement of 1919-1920: A Different Angle on the Ecumenical Movement. Church History, Vol. 51, No 2. (Jun., 1982), p. 198-209.

The Federal Council of Churches

[1] lbid, Harvey. p. 205.

[2] “American Malvern.” Time. March 16, 1942. Available at: <http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,801396,00.html>

The Atlantic Union

[1] Allen, Gary. The Rockefeller File. Seal Beach, California: ’76 Press, 1976

Share this: Print

More

Email

Facebook



Reddit

LinkedIn



Pinterest

