Full text of "The Invisible Government"

The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Invisible Government, by Dan Smoot This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net Title: The Invisible Government Author: Dan Smoot Release Date: December 30, 2006 [EBook #20224] Language: English Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 *** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE INVISIBLE GOVERNMENT *** Produced by Dave Maddock, Curtis A. Weyant and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net "_I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education._" --Thomas Jefferson The Invisible Government by Dan Smoot [Transcriber's note: Although copyrighted in 1962, the author did not renewal his copyright claim after 28 years (which was required to retain copyright for works published before 1964). Therefore, this text is now in the public domain. The text of the copyright notice from the original book is preserved below.] Copyright 1962 by Dan Smoot All rights reserved First Printing June, 1962; Second Printing July, 1962; Third Printing August, 1962; Fourth Printing September, 1962; Fifth Printing October, 1962 Sixth Printing (in pocketsize paperback) August, 1964 Communists in government during World War II formulated major policies which the Truman administration followed; but when the known communists were gone, the policies continued, under Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson. The unseen _they_ who took control of government during World War II still control it. Their tentacles of power are wrapped around levers of political control in Washington; reach into schools, big unions, colleges, churches, civic organizations; dominate communications; have a grip on the prestige and money of big corporations. For a generation, _they_ have kept voters from effecting any changes at the polls. Voters are limited to the role of choosing between parties to administer policies which _they_ formulate. _They_ are determined to convert this Republic into a socialist province of a one-world socialist system. This book tells who _they_ are and how _they_ work. If enough Americans had this information, our Republic would be saved. Please do your utmost to spread the word: order extra copies of this book and help give it wide distribution. See inside of back cover for quantity prices. Published by THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, INC. P.O. Box 9538 Dallas, Texas 75214 Table of Contents Foreword i Chapter I History and The Council 1 Chapter II World War II and Tragic Consequences 23 Chapter III FPA-WAC-IPR 35 Chapter IV Committee For Economic Development 51 Chapter V Business Advisory Council 81 Chapter VI Advertising Council 97 Chapter VII UN and World Government Propaganda 103 Chapter VIII Foreign Aid 129 Chapter IX More of The Interlock 137 Chapter X Communications Media 153 Chapter XI Interlocking Untouchables 161 Chapter XII Why? What Can We Do? 173 Appendix I CFR Membership List 186 Appendix II AUC Membership List 201 Index 227 FOREWORD On May 30, 1961, President Kennedy departed for Europe and a summit meeting with Khrushchev[A]. Every day the Presidential tour was given banner headlines; and the meeting with Khrushchev was reported as an event of earth-shaking consequence. It was an important event. But a meeting which was probably far more important, and which had commanded no front-page headlines at all, ended quietly on May 29, the day before President and Mrs. Kennedy set out on their grand tour. On May 12, 1961, Dr. Philip E. Mosely, Director of Studies of the Council on Foreign Relations, announced that, "Prominent Soviet and American citizens will hold a week-long unofficial conference on Soviet-American relations in the Soviet Union, beginning May 22." Dr. Mosely, a co-chairman of the American group, said that the State Department had approved the meeting but that the Americans involved would go as "private citizens" and would express their own views. _The New York Times'_ news story on Dr. Mosely's announcement (May 13, 1961) read: "The importance attached by the Soviet Union to the meeting appears to be suggested by the fact that the Soviet group will include three members of the communist party's Central Committee ... and one candidate member of that body.... "The meeting, to be held in the town of Nizhnyaya Oreanda, in the Crimea, will follow the pattern of a similar unofficial meeting, in which many of the same persons participated, at Dartmouth College last fall. The meetings will take place in private and there are no plans to issue an agreed statement on the subjects discussed.... "The topics to be discussed include disarmament and the guaranteeing of ... international peace, the role of the United Nations in strengthening international security, the role of advanced nations in aiding under-developed countries, and the prospects for peaceful and improving Soviet-United States relations. "The Dartmouth conference last fall and the scheduled Crimean conference originated from a suggestion made by Norman Cousins, editor of _The Saturday Review_ and co-chairman of the American group going to the Crimea, when he visited the Soviet Union a year and a half ago.... "Mr. Cousins and Dr. Mosely formed a small American group early last year to organize the conferences. It received financial support from the Ford Foundation for the Dartmouth conference and for travel costs to the Crimean meeting. This group selected the American representatives for the two meetings. "Among those who participated in the Dartmouth conference were several who have since taken high posts in the Kennedy Administration, including Dr. Walt W. Rostow, now an assistant to President Kennedy, and George F. Kennan; now United States Ambassador to Yugoslavia...." * * * * * The head of the Soviet delegation to the meeting in the Soviet Union, May 22, 1961, was Alekesander Y. Korneichuk, a close personal friend of Khrushchev. The American citizens scheduled to attend included besides Dr. Mosely and Mr. Cousins: _Marian Anderson_, the singer; _Dean Erwin N. Griswold_, of the Harvard Law School; _Gabriel Hauge_, former economic adviser to President Eisenhower and now an executive of the Manufacturers Trust Company; _Dr. Margaret Mead_, a widely known anthropologist whose name (like that of Norman Cousins) has been associated with communist front activities in the United States; _Dr. A. William Loos_, Director of the Church Peace Union; _Stuart Chase_, American author notable for his pro-socialist, anti-anti-communist attitudes; _William Benton_, former U.S. Senator, also well-known as a pro-socialist, anti-anti-communist, now Chairman of the Board of _Encyclopaedia Britannica_; _Dr. George Fisher_, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; _Professor Paul M. Doty_, _Jr._, of Harvard's Chemistry Department; _Professor Lloyd Reynolds_, Yale University economist; _Professor Louis B. Sohn_ of the Harvard Law School; _Dr. Joseph E. Johnson_, an old friend and former associate of Alger Hiss in the State Department, who succeeded Hiss as President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and still holds that position; _Professor Robert R. Bowie_, former head of the State Department's Policy Planning Staff (a job which Hiss also held at one time), now Director of the Center for International Affairs at Harvard; and _Dr. Arthur Larson_, former assistant to, and ghost writer for, President Eisenhower. Larson was often called "Mr. Modern Republican," because the political philosophy which he espoused was precisely that of Eisenhower (Larson is now, 1962, Director of the World Rule of Law Center at Duke University, where his full-time preoccupation is working for repeal of the Connally Reservation, so that the World Court can take jurisdiction over United States affairs). * * * * * I think the meeting which the Council on Foreign Relations arranged in the Soviet Union, in 1961, was more important than President Kennedy's meeting with Khrushchev, because I am convinced that the Council on Foreign Relations, together with a great number of other associated tax-exempt organizations, constitutes the invisible government which sets the major policies of the federal government; exercises controlling influence on governmental officials who implement the policies; and, through massive and skillful propaganda, influences Congress and the public to support the policies. I am convinced that the objective of this invisible government is to convert America into a socialist state and then make it a unit in a one-world socialist system. My convictions about the invisible government are based on information which is presented in this book. The information about membership and activities of the Council on Foreign Relations and of its interlocking affiliates comes largely from publications issued by those organizations. I am deeply indebted to countless individuals who, when they learned of my interest, enriched my own files with material they had been collecting for years, hoping that someone would eventually use it. I have not managed to get all of the membership rosters and publications issued by all of the organizations discussed. Hence, there are gaps in my information. * * * * * One aspect of the over-all subject, omitted entirely from this book, is the working relationship between internationalist groups in the United States and comparable groups abroad. The Royal Institute of International Affairs in England (usually called Chatham House) and the American Council on Foreign Relations were both conceived at a dinner meeting in Paris in 1919. By working with the CFR, the Royal Institute, undoubtedly, has had profound influence on American affairs. Other internationalist organizations in foreign lands which work with the American Council on Foreign Relations, include the Institut des Relations Internationales (Belgium), Danish Foreign Policy Society, Indian Council of World Affairs, Australian Institute of International Affairs, and similar organizations in France, Italy, Yugoslavia, Greece, and Turkey. The "Bilderbergers" are another powerful group involved in the internationalist web. The "Bilderbergers" take their name from the scene of their first known meeting--the Bilderberg Hotel, Oosterbeck, The Netherlands, in May, 1954. The group consists of influential Western businessmen, diplomats, and high governmental officials. Their meetings, conducted in secrecy and in a hugger-mugger atmosphere, are held about every six months at various places throughout the world. His Royal Highness, Prince Bernhard of The Netherlands, has presided at every known meeting of the Bilderberger Group. Prince Bernhard is known to be an influential member of the Societ� Generale de Belgique, a mysterious organization which seems to be an association of large corporate interests from many countries. American firms associated with the society are said to be among the large corporations whose officers are members of the Council on Foreign Relations and related organizations. I make no effort to explore this situation in this volume. My confession of limitation upon my research does not embarrass me, because two committees of Congress have also failed to make a complete investigation of the great _camarilla_ which manipulates our government. And the congressional committees were trying to investigate only one part of the web--the powerful tax-exempt foundations in the United States. My own research does reveal the broad outlines of the invisible government. D.S. May, 1962 Chapter 1 HISTORY AND THE COUNCIL President George Washington, in his Farewell Address to the People of the United States on September 17, 1796, established a foreign policy which became traditional and a main article of faith for the American people in their dealings with the rest of the world. Washington warned against foreign influence in the shaping of national affairs. He urged America to avoid permanent, entangling alliances with other nations, recommending a national policy of benign neutrality toward the rest of the world. Washington did not want America to build a wall around herself, or to become, in any sense, a hermit nation. Washington's policy permitted freer exchange of travel, commerce, ideas, and culture between Americans and other people than Americans have ever enjoyed since the policy was abandoned. The Father of our Country wanted the American _government_ to be kept out of the wars and revolutions and political affairs of other nations. Washington told Americans that their nation had a high destiny, which it could not fulfill if they permitted their government to become entangled in the affairs of other nations. Despite the fact of two foreign wars (Mexican War, 1846-1848; and Spanish American War, 1898) the foreign policy of Washington remained the policy of this nation, _unaltered_, for 121 years--until Woodrow Wilson's war message to Congress in April, 1917. * * * * * Wilson himself, when campaigning for re-election in 1916, had unequivocally supported our traditional foreign policy: his one major promise to the American people was that he would keep them out of the European war. Yet, even while making this promise, Wilson was yielding to a pressure he was never able to withstand: the influence of Colonel Edward M. House, Wilson's all-powerful adviser. According to House's own papers and the historical studies of Wilson's ardent admirers (see, for example, _Intimate Papers of Colonel House_, edited by Charles Seymour, published in 1926 by Houghton Mifflin; and, _The Crisis of the Old Order_ by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., published 1957 by Houghton Mifflin), House created Wilson's domestic and foreign policies, selected most of Wilson's cabinet and other major appointees, and ran Wilson's State Department. House had powerful connections with international bankers in New York. He was influential, for example, with great financial institutions represented by such people as Paul and Felix Warburg, Otto H. Kahn, Louis Marburg, Henry Morgenthau, Jacob and Mortimer Schiff, Herbert Lehman. House had equally powerful connections with bankers and politicians of Europe. Bringing all of these forces to bear, House persuaded Wilson that America had an evangelistic mission to save the world for "democracy." The first major twentieth century tragedy for the United States resulted: Wilson's war message to Congress and the declaration of war against Germany on April 6, 1917. House also persuaded Wilson that the way to avoid all future wars was to create a world federation of nations. On May 27, 1916, in a speech to the League to Enforce Peace, Wilson first publicly endorsed Colonel House's world-government idea (without, however, identifying it as originating with House). * * * * * In September, 1916, Wilson (at the urging of House) appointed a committee of intellectuals (the first President's Brain Trust) to formulate peace terms and draw up a charter for world government. This committee, with House in charge, consisted of about 150 college professors, graduate students, lawyers, economists, writers, and others. Among them were men still familiar to Americans in the 1960's: Walter Lippmann (columnist); Norman Thomas (head of the American socialist party); Allen Dulles (former head of C.I.A.); John Foster Dulles (late Secretary of State); Christian A. Herter (former Secretary of State). These eager young intellectuals around Wilson, under the clear eyes of crafty Colonel House, drew up their charter for world government (League of Nations Covenant) and prepared for the brave new socialist one-world to follow World War I. But things went sour at the Paris Peace Conference. They soured even more when constitutionalists in the United States Senate found out what was being planned and made it quite plain that the Senate would not authorize United States membership in such a world federation. Bitter with disappointment but not willing to give up, Colonel House called together in Paris, France, a group of his most dedicated young intellectuals--among them, John Foster and Allen Dulles, Christian A. Herter, and Tasker H. Bliss--and arranged a dinner meeting with a group of like-minded Englishmen at the Majestic Hotel, Paris, on May 19, 1919. The group formally agreed to form an organization "for the study of international affairs." The American group came home from Paris and formed The Council on Foreign Relations, which was incorporated in 1921. The purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations was to create (and condition the American people to accept) what House called a "positive" foreign policy for America--to replace the traditional "negative" foreign policy which had kept America out of the endless turmoil of old-world politics and had permitted the American people to develop their great nation in freedom and independence from the rest of the world. The Council did not amount to a great deal until 1927, when the Rockefeller family (through the various Rockefeller Foundations and Funds) began to pour money into it. Before long, the Carnegie Foundations (and later the Ford Foundation) began to finance the Council. In 1929, the Council (largely with Rockefeller gifts) acquired its present headquarters property: The Harold Pratt House, 58 East 68th Street, New York City. In 1939, the Council began taking over the U.S. State Department. Shortly after the start of World War II, in September, 1939, Hamilton Fish Armstrong and Walter H. Mallory, of the Council on Foreign Relations, visited the State Department to offer the services of the Council. It was agreed that the Council would do research and make recommendations for the State Department, without formal assignment or responsibility. The Council formed groups to work in four general fields--Security and Armaments Problems, Economic and Financial Problems, Political Problems, and Territorial Problems. The Rockefeller Foundation agreed to finance, through grants, the operation of this plan. In February, 1941, the Council on Foreign Relations' relationship with the State Department changed. The State Department created the Division of Special Research, which was divided into Economic, Security, Political, Territorial sections. Leo Pasvolsky, of the Council, was appointed Director of this Division. Within a very short time, members of the Council on Foreign Relations dominated this new Division in the State Department. During 1942, the State Department set up the Advisory Committee on Postwar Foreign Policy. Secretary of State Cordell Hull was Chairman. The following members of the Council on Foreign Relations were on this Committee: Under Secretary of State Sumner Welles (Vice-Chairman), Dr. Leo Pasvolsky (Executive Officer); Hamilton Fish Armstrong, Isaiah Bowman, Benjamin V. Cohen, Norman H. Davis, and James T. Shotwell. Other members of the Council also found positions in the State Department: Philip E. Mosely, Walter E. Sharp, and Grayson Kirk, among others. The crowning moment of achievement for the Council came at San Francisco in 1945, when over 40 members of the United States Delegation to the organizational meeting of the United Nations (where the United Nations Charter was written) were members of the Council. Among them: Alger Hiss, Secretary of State Edward R. Stettinius, Leo Pasvolsky, John Foster Dulles, John J. McCloy, Julius C. Holmes, Nelson A. Rockefeller, Adlai Stevenson, Joseph E. Johnson, Ralph J. Bunche, Clark M. Eichelberger, and Thomas K. Finletter. By 1945, the Council on Foreign Relations, and various foundations and other organizations interlocked with it, had virtually taken over the U.S. State Department. Some CFR members were later identified as Soviet espionage agents: for example, Alger Hiss and Lauchlin Currie. Other Council on Foreign Relations members--Owen Lattimore, for example--with powerful influence in the Roosevelt and Truman Administrations, were subsequently identified, not as actual communists or Soviet espionage agents, but as "conscious, articulate instruments of the Soviet international conspiracy." I do not intend to imply by these citations that the Council on Foreign Relations is, or ever was, a communist organization. Boasting among its members Presidents of the United States (Hoover, Eisenhower, and Kennedy), Secretaries of State, and many other high officials, both civilian and military, the Council can be termed, by those who agree with its objectives, a "patriotic" organization. The fact, however, that communists, Soviet espionage agents, and pro-communists could work inconspicuously for many years as influential members of the Council indicates something very significant about the Council's objectives. The ultimate aim of the Council on Foreign Relations (however well-intentioned its prominent and powerful members may be) is the same as the ultimate aim of international communism: to create a one-world socialist system and make the United States an official part of it. Some indication of the influence of CFR members can be found in the boasts of their best friends. Consider the remarkable case of the nomination and confirmation of Julius C. Holmes as United States Ambassador to Iran. Holmes was one of the CFR members who served as United States delegates to the United Nations founding conference at San Francisco in 1945. Mr. Holmes has had many important jobs in the State Department since 1925; but from 1945 to 1948, he was out of government service. During that early postwar period, the United States government had approximately 390 Merchant Marine oil tankers (built and used during World War II) which had become surplus. A law of Congress prohibited the government from selling the surplus vessels to foreign-owned or foreign-controlled companies, and prohibited any American company from purchasing them for resale to foreigners. The purpose of the law was to guarantee that oil tankers (vital in times of war) would remain under the control of the United States government. Julius Holmes conceived the idea of making a quick profit by buying and selling some of the surplus tankers. Holmes was closely associated with Edward Stettinius, former Secretary of State, and with two of Stettinius' principal advisers: Joe Casey, a former U.S. Congressman; and Stanley Klein, a New York financier. In August, 1947, this group formed a corporation (and ultimately formed others) to buy surplus oil tankers from the government. The legal and technical maneuvering which followed is complex and shady, but it has all been revealed and reported by congressional committees. Holmes and his associates managed to buy eight oil tankers from the U.S. government and re-sell all of them to foreign interests, in violation of the intent of the law and of the surplus-disposal program. One of the eight tankers was ultimately leased to the Soviet Union and used to haul fuel oil from communist Romania to the Chinese reds during the Korean war. By the time he returned to foreign service with the State Department in September, 1948, Holmes had made for himself an estimated profit of about one million dollars, with practically no investment of his own money, and at no financial risk. A Senate subcommittee, which, in 1952, investigated this affair, unanimously condemned the Holmes-Casey-Klein tanker deals as "morally wrong and clearly in violation of the intent of the law," and as a "highly improper, if not actually illegal, get-rich-quick" operation which was detrimental to the interests of the United States. Holmes and his associates were criminally indicted in 1954--but the Department of Justice dismissed the indictments on a legal technicality later that same year. A few weeks after the criminal indictment against Holmes had been dismissed, President Eisenhower, in 1955, nominated Julius C. Holmes to be our Ambassador to Iran. Enough United States Senators in 1955 expressed a decent sense of outrage about the nomination of such a man for such a post that Holmes "permitted" his name to be withdrawn, before the Senate acted on the question of confirming his appointment. The State Department promptly sent Holmes to Tangier with the rank of Minister; brought him back to Washington in 1956 as a Special Assistant to the Secretary of State; and sent him out as Minister and Consul General in Hong Kong and Macao in 1959. And then, in 1961, Kennedy nominated Julius C. Holmes for the same job Eisenhower had tried to give him in 1955--Ambassador to Iran. Arguing in favor of Holmes, Senator Prescott Bush admitted that Holmes' tanker deals were improper and ill-advised, but claimed that Holmes was an innocent victim of sharp operators! The "innocent" victim made a million dollars in one year by being victimized. He has never offered to make restitution to the government. Moreover, when questioned, in April, 1961, Holmes said he still sees nothing wrong with what he did and admits he would do it again if he had the opportunity--and felt that no congressional committee would ever investigate. All Senators, who supported Holmes in debate, hammered the point that, although Holmes may have done something shady and unsavory during the three-year period in the late 1940's when he was _out_ of government service, there was no evidence that he had ever misbehaved while he was _in_ government service. This amoral attitude seems to imply that a known chicken thief cannot be considered a threat to turkey growers, unless he has actually been caught stealing turkeys. Senate debates on the confirmation of Holmes as Ambassador to Iran are printed in the _Congressional Record_: pp. 6385-86, April 27, 1961; pp. 6668-69, May 3, 1961; and pp. 6982-95, May 8, 1961. The vote was taken on May 8. After the history of Julius C. Holmes had been thoroughly exposed, the Senate confirmed Holmes' nomination 75 to 21, with 4 Senators taking no stand. Julius C. Holmes was sworn in as United States Ambassador to Iran on May 15, 1961. The real reason why Holmes was nominated for an important ambassadorship by two Presidents and finally confirmed by the Senate is obvious--and was, indeed, inadvertently revealed by Senator Prescott Bush: Holmes, a Council on Foreign Relations member, is a darling of the leftwing internationalists who are determined to drag America into a socialist one-world system. During the Senate debate about Holmes' nomination Senator Bush said: "I believe that one of the most telling witnesses with whom I have ever talked regarding Mr. Holmes is Mr. Henry Wriston, formerly president of Brown University, now chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, in New York, and chairman of the American Assembly. Mr. Wriston not only holds these distinguished offices, but he has also made a special study of the State Department and the career service in the State Department. "He is credited with having 'Wristonized' the Foreign Service of the United States. He told me a few years ago ... [that] 'Julius Holmes is the ablest man in the Foreign Service Corps of the United States.'" Dr. Wriston was (in 1961) President (not Chairman, as Senator Bush called him) of the Council on Foreign Relations. But Senator Bush was not exaggerating or erring when he said that the State Department has been _Wristonized_--if we acknowledge that the State Department has been converted into an agency of Dr. Wriston's Council on Foreign Relations. Indeed, the Senator could have said that the United States government has been _Wristonized_. Here, for example, are _some_ of the members of the Council on Foreign Relations who, in 1961, held positions in the United States Government: John F. Kennedy, President; Dean Rusk, Secretary of State; Douglas Dillon, Secretary of the Treasury; Adlai Stevenson, United Nations Ambassador; Allen W. Dulles, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; Chester Bowles, Under Secretary of State; W. Averell Harriman, Ambassador-at-large; John J. McCloy, Disarmament Administrator; General Lyman L. Lemnitzer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; John Kenneth Galbraith, Ambassador to India; Edward R. Murrow, Head of United States Information Agency; G. Frederick Reinhardt, Ambassador to Italy; David K. E. Bruce, Ambassador to United Kingdom; Livingston T. Merchant, Ambassador to Canada; Lt. Gen. James M. Gavin, Ambassador to France; George F. Kennan, Ambassador to Yugoslavia; Julius C. Holmes, Ambassador to Iran; Arthur H. Dean, head of the United States Delegation to Geneva Disarmament Conference; Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., Special White House Assistant; Edwin O. Reischauer, Ambassador to Japan; Thomas K. Finletter, Ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development; George C. McGhee, Assistant Secretary of State for Policy Planning; Henry R. Labouisse, Director of International Cooperation Administration; George W. Ball, Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs; McGeorge Bundy, Special Assistant for National Security; Paul H. Nitze, Assistant Secretary of Defense; Adolf A. Berle, Chairman, Inter-Departmental Committee on Latin America; Charles E. Bohlen, Assistant Secretary of State. The names listed do not, by any means, constitute a complete roster of all Council members who are in the Congress or hold important positions in the Administration. In the 1960-61 Annual Report of the Council on Foreign Relations, there is an item of information which reveals a great deal about the close relationship between the Council and the executive branch of the federal government. On Page 37, The Report explains why there had been an unusually large recent increase in the number of non-resident members (CFR members who do not reside within 50 miles of New York City Hall): "The rather large increase in the non-resident academic category is largely explained by the fact that many academic members have left New York to join the new administration." * * * * * Concerning President Kennedy's membership in the CFR, there is an interesting story. On June 7, 1960, Mr. Kennedy, then a United States Senator, wrote a letter answering a question about his membership in the Council. Mr. Kennedy said: "I am a member of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City. As a long-time subscriber to the quarterly, Foreign Affairs, and as a member of the Senate, I was invited to become a member." On August 23, 1961, Mr. George S. Franklin, Jr., Executive Director of the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote a letter answering a question about President Kennedy's membership. Mr. Franklin said: "I am enclosing the latest Annual Report of the Council with a list of members in the back. You will note that President Eisenhower is a member, but this is not true of either President Kennedy or President Truman." President Kennedy is not listed as a member in the 1960-61 Annual Report of the CFR. The complete roster of CFR members, as set out in the 1960-61 Annual Report, is in Appendix I of this volume. Several persons, besides President Kennedy, whom I have called CFR members are not on this roster. I have called them CFR members, if their names have ever appeared on _any_ official CFR membership list. The Council is actually a small organization. Its membership is restricted to 700 resident members (American citizens whose residences or places of business are within 50 miles of City Hall in New York City), and 700 non-resident members (American citizens who reside or do business outside that 50-mile radius); but most of the members occupy important positions in government, in education, in the press, in the broadcasting industry, in business, in finance, or in some multi-million-dollar tax-exempt foundation. An indication of overall accomplishments of the Council can be found in its Annual Report of 1958-59, which reprints a speech by Walter H. Mallory on the occasion of his retiring after 32 years as Executive Director of the Council. Speaking to the Board of Directors of the Council at a small dinner in his honor on May 21, 1959, Mr. Mallory said: "When I cast my mind back to 1927, the year that I first joined the Council, it seems little short of a miracle that the organization could have taken root in those days. You will remember that the United States had decided not to join the League of Nations.... On the domestic front, the budget was extremely small, taxes were light ... and we didn't even recognize the Russians. What could there possibly be for a Council on Foreign Relations to do? "Well, there were a few men who did not feel content with that comfortable isolationist climate. They thought the United States had an important role to play in the world and they resolved to try to find out what that role ought to be. Some of those men are present this evening." The Council's principal publication is a quarterly magazine, _Foreign Affairs_. Indeed, publishing this quarterly is the Council's major activity; and income from the publication is a principal source of revenue for the Council. On June 30, 1961, _Foreign Affairs_ had a circulation of only 43,500; but it is probably the most influential publication in the world. Key figures in government--from the Secretary of State downward--write articles for, and announce new policies in, _Foreign Affairs_. Other publications of the Council include three volumes which it publishes annually (_Political Handbook of the World_, _The United States in World Affairs_ and _Documents on American Foreign Relations_), and numerous special studies and books. The Council's financial statement for the 1960-61 fiscal year listed the following income: Membership Dues $123,200 Council Development Fund $ 87,000 Committees Development Fund $ 2,500 Corporation Service $112,200 Foundation Grants $231,700 Net Income from Investments $106,700 Net Receipt from Sale of Books $ 26,700 _Foreign Affairs_ Subscriptions and Sales $210,300 _Foreign Affairs_ Advertising $ 21,800 Miscellaneous $ 2,900 --------- Total $925,000 "Corporation Service" on this list means money contributed to the Council by business firms. Here are firms listed as contributors to the Council during the 1960-61 fiscal year: Aluminum Limited, Inc. American Can Company American Metal Climax, Inc. American Telephone and Telegraph Company Arabian American Oil Company Armco International Corporation Asiatic Petroleum Corporation Bankers Trust Company Belgian Securities Corporation Bethlehem Steel Company, Inc. Brown Brothers, Harriman and Co. Cabot Corporation California Texas Oil Corp. Cameron Iron Works, Inc. Campbell Soup Company The Chase Manhattan Bank Chesebrough-Pond's Inc. Chicago Bridge and Iron Co. Cities Service Company, Inc. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company Continental Can Company Continental Oil Company Corn Products Company Corning Glass Works Dresser Industries, Inc. Ethyl Corporation I. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. Farrell Lines, Inc. The First National City Bank of New York Ford Motor Company, International Division Foster Wheeler Corporation Freeport Sulphur Company General Dynamics Corporation General Motors Overseas Operations The Gillette Company W. R. Grace and Co. Gulf Oil Corporation Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Company Haskins and Sells H. J. Heinz Company Hughes Tool Company IBM World Trade Corporation International General Electric Company The International Nickel Company, Inc. International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation Irving Trust Company The M. W. Kellogg Company Kidder, Peabody and Co. Carl M. Loeb, Rhoades and Co. The Lummus Company Merck and Company, Inc. Mobil International Oil Co. Model, Roland and Stone The National Cash Register Co. National Lead Company, Inc. The New York Times The Ohio Oil Co., Inc. Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation Otis Elevator Company Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation Pan American Airways System Pfizer International, Inc. Radio Corporation of America The RAND Corporation San Jacinto Petroleum Corporation J. Henry Schroder Banking Corporation Sinclair Oil Corporation The Singer Manufacturing Company Sprague Electric Company Standard Oil Company of California Standard Oil Company (N. J.) Standard-Vacuum Oil Company Stauffer Chemical Company Symington Wayne Corporation Texaco, Inc. Texas Gulf Sulphur Company Texas Instruments, Inc. Tidewater Oil Company Time, Inc. Union Tank Car Company United States Lines Company United States Steel Corporation White, Weld and Co. Wyandotte Chemicals Corporation What do these corporations get for the money contributed to the Council on Foreign Relations? From the 1960-61 Annual Report of the Council: "Subscribers to the Council's Corporation Service (who pay a minimum fee of $1,000) are entitled to several privileges. Among them are (a) free consultation with members of the Council's staff on problems of foreign policy, (b) access to the Council's specialized library on international affairs, including its unique collection of magazine and press clippings, (c) copies of all Council publications and six subscriptions to _Foreign Affairs_ for officers of the company or its library, (d) an off-the-record dinner, held annually for chairmen and presidents of subscribing companies at which a prominent speaker discusses some outstanding issue of United States foreign policy, and (e) two annual series of Seminars for business executives appointed by their companies. These Seminars are led by widely experienced Americans who discuss various problems of American political or economic foreign policy." _All_ speakers at the Council's dinner meetings and seminars for business executives are leading advocates of internationalism and the total state. Many of them, in fact, are important officials in government. The ego-appeal is enormous to businessmen, who get special off-the-record briefings from Cabinet officers and other officials close to the President of the United States. The briefings and the seminar lectures are consistently designed to elicit the support of businessmen for major features of Administration policy. For example, during 1960 and 1961, the three issues of major importance to both Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy were Disarmament, the declining value of the American dollar, and the tariff-and-trade problem. The Eisenhower and Kennedy positions on these three issues were virtually identical; and the solutions they urged meshed with the internationalist program of pushing America into a one-world socialist system. The business executives who attended CFR briefings and seminars in the 1960-61 fiscal year received expert indoctrination in the internationalist position on the three major issues of that year. From "Seminars For Business Executives," Pages 43-44 of the 1960-61 Annual Report of the Council on Foreign Relations: "The Fall 1960 Seminar ... was brought to a close with an appraisal of disarmament negotiations, past and present, by Edmund A. Gullion, then Acting Deputy Director, United States Disarmament Administration.... "'The International Position of the Dollar' was the theme of the Spring 1961 Seminar series. Robert Triffin, Professor of Economics at Yale University, spoke on the present balance of payments situation at the opening session. At the second meeting, William Diebold, Jr., Director of Economic Studies at the Council, addressed the group on United States foreign trade policy. The third meeting dealt with foreign investment and the balance of payments. August Maffry, Vice President of the Irving Trust Company, was discussion leader.... "On June 8, George W. Ball, Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, spoke at the annual Corporation Service dinner for presidents and board chairmen of participating companies.... Secretary Ball [discussed] the foreign economic policy of the new Kennedy Administration." George W. Ball was, for several years, a registered lobbyist in Washington, representing foreign commercial interests. He is a chief architect of President Kennedy's 1962 tariff-and-trade proposals--which would internationalize American trade and commerce, as a prelude to amalgamating our economy with that of other nations. In 1960-61, 84 leading corporations contributed 112,200 tax-exempt dollars to the Council on Foreign Relations for the privilege of having their chief officers exposed to the propaganda of international socialism. A principal activity of the Council is its meetings, according to the 1958-1959 annual report: "During 1958-59, the Council's program of meetings continued to place emphasis on small, roundtable meetings.... Of the 99 meetings held during the year, 58 were roundtables.... The balance of the meetings program was made up of the more traditional large afternoon or dinner sessions for larger groups of Council members. In the course of the year, the Council convened such meetings for Premier Castro; First Deputy Premier Mikoyan; Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold...." The Council's annual report lists all of the meetings and "distinguished" speakers for which it convened the meetings. It is an amazing list. Although the Council has tax-exemption as an organization to study international affairs and, presumably, to help the public arrive at a better understanding of United States foreign policy, not one speaker for any Council meeting represented traditional U. S. policy. Every one was a known advocate of leftwing internationalism. A surprising number of them were known communists or communist sympathizers or admitted socialists. Kwame Nkrumah, Prime Minister of Ghana, who is widely believed to be a communist; who is admittedly socialist; and who aligned his nation with the Soviets--spoke to the Council on "Free Africa," with W. Averell Harriman presiding. Mahmoud Fawzi, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the United Arab Republic, a socialist whose hatred of the United States is rather well known, spoke to the Council on "Middle East." Herbert L. Matthews, a member of the editorial board of _The New York Times_ (whose articles on Castro as the Robin Hood of Cuba built that communist hoodlum a worldwide reputation and helped him conquer Cuba) spoke to the Council _twice_, once on "A Political Appraisal of Latin American Affairs," and once on "The Castro Regime." M. C. Chagla, Ambassador of India to the United States, a socialist, spoke to the Council on "Indian Foreign Policy." Anastas I. Mikoyan, First Deputy Premier, USSR, spoke to the Council on "Issues in Soviet-American Relations," with John J. McCloy (later Kennedy's Disarmament Administrator) presiding. Fidel Castro spoke to the Council on "Cuba and the United States." Here are some other well-known socialists who spoke to the Council on Foreign Relations during the 1958-59 year: Dag Hammarskjold, Secretary-General of the United Nations; Per Jacobsson, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund; Abba Eban, Ambassador of Israel to the United States; Willy Brandt, Mayor of West Berlin; Stanley de Zoysa, Minister of Finance of Ceylon; Mortarji Desai, Minister of Finance of India; Victor Urquidi, President of Mexican Economic Society; Fritz Erler, Co-Chairman of the Socialist Group in the German Bundestag; Tom Mboya, Member of the Kenya Legislative Council; Sir Grantley H. Adams, Prime Minister of the West Indies Federation; Theodore Kollek, Director-General of the Office of the Prime Minister of Israel; Dr. Gikomyo W. Kiano, member of the Kenya Legislative Council. Officials of communist governments, in addition to those already listed, who spoke to the Council that year, included Oscar Lange, Vice-President of the State Council of the Polish People's Republic; and Marko Nikezic, Ambassador of Yugoslavia to the United States. * * * * * Throughout this book, I show the close inter-locking connection between the Council on Foreign Relations and many other organizations. The only organizations formally affiliated with the Council, however, are the Committees on Foreign Relations, which the Council created, which it controls, and which exist in 30 cities: Albuquerque, Atlanta, Birmingham, Boise, Boston, Casper, Charlottesville, Denver, Des Moines, Detroit, Houston, Indianapolis, Little Rock, Los Angeles, Louisville, Nashville, Omaha, Philadelphia, Portland (Maine), Portland (Oregon), Providence, St. Louis, St. Paul-Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, San Francisco, Seattle, Tucson, Tulsa, Wichita, Worcester. A booklet entitled _Committees on Foreign Relations: Directory of Members, January, 1961_, published by the Council on Foreign Relations, contains a roster of members of all the Committees on Foreign Relations, except the one at Casper, Wyoming, which was not organized until later in 1961. The booklet also gives a brief history of the Committees: "In 1938, with the financial assistance of the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Council began to organize affiliated discussion groups in a few American cities.... "Each Committee is composed of forty or more men who are leaders in the professions and occupations of their area--representatives of business, the law, universities and schools, the press, and so on. About once a month, from October through May, members come together for dinner and an evening of discussion with a guest speaker of special competence.... Since the beginning in 1938, the Carnegie Corporation of New York has continued to make annual grants in support of the Committee program." The following information about the Committees on Foreign Relations is from the 1960-61 Annual Report of the Council on Foreign Relations: "During the past season the Foreign Relations Committees carried on their customary programs of private dinner meetings. In all, 206 meetings were held.... "The Council arranged or figured in the arrangement of about three-quarters of the meetings held, the other sessions being undertaken upon the initiative of the Committees. Attendance at the discussions averaged 28 persons, slightly more than in previous years and about the maximum number for good discussion. There was little change in membership--the total being just under 1800. It will be recalled that this membership consists of men who are leaders in the various professions and occupations.... "On June 2 and 3, the 23rd annual conference of Committee representatives was held at the Harold Pratt House. Mounting pressures throughout the year ... made it advisable to plan a conference program that would facilitate re-examination of the strategic uses of the United Nations for American Policy in the years ahead. Accordingly, the conference theme was designated as _United States Policy and the United Nations_. Emphasis was upon re-appraisal of the United States national interest in the United Nations--and the cost of sustaining that interest.... "In the course of the year, officers and members of the Council and of the staff visited most of the Committees for the purpose of leading discussions at meetings, supervising Committee procedures and seeking the strengthening of Committee relations with the Council." Chapter 2 WORLD WAR II AND TRAGIC CONSEQUENCES Although the Council on Foreign Relations had almost gained controlling influence on the government of the United States as early as 1941, it had failed to indoctrinate the American people for acceptance of what Colonel House had called a "positive" foreign policy. In 1940, Franklin D. Roosevelt (although eager to get the United States into the Second World War and already making preparations for that tragedy) had to campaign for re-election with the same promise that Wilson had made in 1916--to keep us out of the European war. Even as late as the day before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December, 1941, the American people were still overwhelmingly "isolationist"--a word which internationalists use as a term of contempt but which means merely that the American people were still devoted to their nation's traditional foreign policy. It was necessary for Roosevelt to take steps which the public would not notice or understand but which would inescapably involve the nation in the foreign war. When enough such sly involvement had been manipulated, there would come, eventually, some incident to push us over the brink into open participation. Then, any American who continued to advocate our traditional foreign policy of benign neutrality would be an object of public hatred, would be investigated and condemned by officialdom as a "pro-nazi," and possibly prosecuted for sedition. * * * * * The Council on Foreign Relations has heavy responsibility for the maneuvering which thus dragged America into World War II. One major step which Roosevelt took toward war (at precisely the time when he was campaigning for his third-term re-election on a platform of peace and neutrality to keep America out of war) was his radical alteration of traditional concepts of United States policy in order to declare Greenland under the protection of our Monroe Doctrine. The Council on Foreign Relations officially boasts full responsibility for this fateful step toward war. On pages 13 and 14 of a book entitled _The Council on Foreign Relations: A Record of Twenty-Five Years, 1921-1946_ (written by officials of the Council and published by the Council on January 1, 1947) are these passages: "One further example may be cited of the way in which ideas and recommendations originating at Council meetings have entered into the stream of official discussion and action. "On March 17, 1940, a Council group completed a confidential report which pointed out the strategic importance of Greenland for transatlantic aviation and for meteorological observations. The report stated: "'The possibility must be considered that Denmark might be overrun by Germany. In such case, Greenland might be transferred by treaty to German sovereignty.' "It also pointed out the possible danger to the United States in such an eventuality, and mentioned that Greenland lies within the geographical sphere 'within which the Monroe Doctrine is presumed to apply.' "Shortly after this, one of the members of the group which had prepared the report was summoned to the White House. President Roosevelt had a copy of the memorandum in his hand and said that he had turned to his visitor for advice because of his part in raising the question of Greenland's strategic importance. "Germany invaded Denmark on April 9, 1940. At his press conference three days later, the President stated that he was satisfied that Greenland was a part of the American continent. After a visit to the White House on the same day, the Danish Minister said that he agreed with the President. "On April 9, 1941, an agreement was signed between the United States and Denmark which provided for assistance by the United States to Greenland in the maintenance of its status, and granted to the United States the right to locate and construct such airplane landing-fields, seaplane facilities, and radio and meteorological installations as might be necessary for the defense of Greenland, and for the defense of the American continent. This was eight months before Germany declared war on the United States. "The Council's report on Greenland was only one item in an extensive research project which offered an unusual instance of wartime collaboration between Government agencies and a private institution.... The project ... exhibited the kind of contribution which the Council has been uniquely equipped to provide...." * * * * * The Danish colony of Greenland--a huge island covered by polar ice--lies in the Arctic Ocean, 1325 miles off the coast of Denmark. It is 200 miles from Canada, 650 miles from the British Isles. The extreme southwestern tip of Greenland is 1315 miles from the most extreme northeastern tip of the United States (Maine). In other words, Canada and England, which were at war with Germany when we undertook to protect Greenland from Germany, are both much closer to Greenland than the United States is. But history gives better proof than geography does, that the learned Council members who put Greenland in the Western Hemisphere, within the meaning of the Monroe Doctrine, were either ignorant or dishonest. The Monroe Doctrine, closing the Western Hemisphere to further European colonization, was proclaimed in 1823. Denmark, a European nation, colonized Greenland, proclaiming sole sovereignty in 1921, without any hint of protest from the United States that this European colonization infringed upon the Monroe Doctrine. * * * * * Members of the Council on Foreign Relations played a key role in getting America into World War II. They played _the_ role in creating the basic policies which this nation has followed since the end of World War II. These policies are accomplishing: (1) the redistribution to other nations of the great United States reserve of gold which made our dollar the strongest currency in the world; (2) the building up of the industrial capacity of other nations, at our expense, thus eliminating our pre-eminent productive superiority; (3) the taking away of world markets from United States producers (and even much of their domestic market) until capitalistic America will no longer dominate world trade; (4) the entwining of American affairs--economic, political, cultural, social, educational, and even religious--with those of other nations until the United States will no longer have an independent policy, either domestic or foreign: until we can not return to our traditional foreign policy of maintaining national independence, nor to free private capitalism as an economic system. The ghastly wartime and post-war decisions (which put the Soviet Union astride the globe like a menacing colossus and placed the incomparably stronger United States in the position of appeasing and retreating) can be traced to persons who were members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Consider a specific example: the explosive German problem. * * * * * In October, 1943, Cordell Hull (U. S. Secretary of State), Anthony Eden (Foreign Minister for Great Britain), and V. Molotov (Soviet Commissar for Foreign Affairs), had a conference at Moscow. Eden suggested that they create a European Advisory Commission which would decide how Germany, after defeat, would be partitioned, occupied, and governed by the three victorious powers. Molotov approved. Hull did not like the idea, but agreed to it in deference to the wishes of the two others. Philip E. Mosely, of the CFR, was Hull's special adviser at this Moscow Conference. The next month, November, 1943, President Franklin D. Roosevelt went to Tehran for his first conference with Stalin and Churchill. Aboard the U. S. S. _Iowa_ en route to Tehran, Roosevelt had a conference with his Joint Chiefs of Staff. They discussed, among other things, the post-war division and occupation of Germany. President Roosevelt predicted that Germany would collapse suddenly and that "there would definitely be a race for Berlin" by the three great powers. The President said: "We may have to put the United States divisions into Berlin as soon as possible, because the United States should have Berlin." Harry Hopkins suggested that "we be ready to put an airborne division into Berlin two hours after the collapse of Germany." Roosevelt wanted the United States to occupy Berlin and northwestern Germany; the British to occupy France, Belgium, and southern Germany; and the Soviets to have eastern Germany. At the Tehran Conference (November 27-December 2, 1943), Stalin seemed singularly indifferent to the question of which power would occupy which zones of Germany after the war. Stalin revealed intense interest in only three topics: (1) urging the western allies to make a frontal assault, across the English Channel, on Hitler's fortress Europe; (2) finding out, immediately, the name of the man whom the western allies would designate to command such an operation (Eisenhower had not yet been selected); and (3) reducing the whole of Europe to virtual impotence so that the Soviet Union would be the only major power on the continent after the war. Roosevelt approved of every proposal Stalin made. A broad outline of the behavior and proposals of Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin at Tehran can be found in the diplomatic papers published in 1961 by the State Department, in a volume entitled _Foreign Relations of the United States: Diplomatic Papers: The Conferences at Cairo and Tehran 1943_. As to specific agreements on the postwar division and occupation of Germany, the Tehran papers reveal only that the European Advisory Commission would work out the details. We know that Roosevelt and his military advisers in November, 1943, agreed that America should take and occupy Berlin. Yet, 17 months later, we did just the opposite. * * * * * In the closing days of World War II, the American Ninth Army was rolling toward Berlin, meeting little resistance, slowed down only by German civilians clogging the highways, fleeing from the Russians. German soundtrucks were circulating in the Berlin area, counseling stray troops to stop resistance and surrender to the Americans. Some twenty or thirty miles east of Berlin, the German nation had concentrated its dying strength and was fighting savagely against the Russians. Our Ninth Army could have been in Berlin within a few hours, probably without shedding another drop of blood; but General Eisenhower suddenly halted our Army. He kept it sitting idly outside Berlin for days, while the Russians slugged their way in, killing, raping, ravaging. We gave the Russians control of the eastern portion of Berlin--and of _all_ the territory surrounding the city. To the south, General Patton's forces were plowing into Czechoslovakia. When Patton was thirty miles from Prague, the capital, General Eisenhower ordered him to stop--ordered him not to accept surrender of German soldiers, but to hold them at bay until the Russians could move up and accept surrender. As soon as the Russians were thus established as the conquerors of Czechoslovakia, Eisenhower ordered Patton to evacuate. Units of Czechoslovakian patriots had been fighting with Western armies since 1943. We had promised them that they could participate in the liberation of their own homeland; but we did not let them move into Czechoslovakia until after the Russians had taken over. Czechoslovakian and American troops had to ask the Soviets for permission to come into Prague for a victory celebration--after the Russians had been permitted to conquer the country. Western Armies, under Eisenhower's command, rounded up an estimated five million anti-communist refugees and delivered them to the Soviets who tortured them, sent them to slave camps, or murdered them. All of this occurred because we refused to do what would have been easy for us to do--and what our top leaders had agreed just 17 months before that we must do: that is, take and hold Berlin and surrounding territory until postwar peace treaties were made. * * * * * Who made the decisions to pull our armies back in Europe and let the Soviets take over? General Eisenhower gave the orders; and, in his book, _Crusade in Europe_ (published in 1948, before the awful consequences of those decisions were fully known to the public), Eisenhower took his share of credit for making the decisions. When he entered politics four years later, Eisenhower denied responsibility: he claimed that he was merely a soldier, obeying orders, implementing decisions which Presidents Roosevelt and Truman had made. Memoirs of British military men indicate that Eisenhower went far _beyond_ the call of military duty in his "co-operative" efforts to help the Soviets capture political prisoner's and enslave all of central Europe. _Triumph in the West_, by Arthur Bryant, published in 1959 by Doubleday & Company, as a "History of the War Years Based on the Diaries of Field-Marshal Lord Alanbrooke, Chief of the Imperial General Staff," reveals that, in the closing days of the war, General Eisenhower was often in direct communication with Stalin, reporting his decisions and actions to the Soviet dictator before Eisenhower's own military superiors knew what was going on. Regardless of what responsibility General Eisenhower may or may not have had for _formulating_ the decisions which held our armies back from Eastern Europe, those decisions seem to have stemmed from the conferences which Roosevelt had with Stalin at Tehran in 1943 and at Yalta in 1945. * * * * * But who made the decision to isolate Berlin 110 miles deep inside communist-controlled territory without any agreements concerning access routes by which the Western Powers could get to the city? According to Arthur Krock, of the _New York Times_, George F. Kennan, (a member of the Council on Foreign Relations) persuaded Roosevelt to accept the Berlin zoning arrangement. Kennan, at the time, was political adviser to Ambassador John G. Winant, who was the United States Representative on the three-member European Advisory Commission. Mr. Krock's account (in the _New York Times_, June 18, 1961 and July 2, 1961) is rather involved; but here is the essence of it: President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill agreed to enclose Berlin 110 miles within the Soviet occupation zone. Winant submitted a recommendation, embracing this agreement. Winant felt that it would offend the Soviets if we asked for guaranteed access routes, and believed that guarantees were unnecessary anyway. When submitting his recommendation to Washington, however, Winant attached a map on which a specific allied corridor of access into the city was drawn. Winant's proposal was never acted on in Washington. Therefore, the British submitted a recommendation. Roosevelt rejected the British plan, and made his own proposal. The British and Soviets disliked Roosevelt's plan; and negotiations over the zoning of Berlin were deadlocked. George F. Kennan broke the deadlock by going directly to Roosevelt and persuading him to accept the Berlin zoning agreement, which Mr. Krock calls a "war-breeding monstrosity," and a "witless travesty on statecraft and military competence." Mr. Krock says most of his information came from one of Philip E. Mosely's articles in an old issue of _Foreign Affairs_--which I have been unable to get for my files. I cannot, therefore, guarantee the authenticity of Mr. Krock's account; but I can certainly agree with his conclusion that only Joseph Stalin and international communism benefitted from the "incredible zoning agreements" that placed "Berlin 110 miles within the Soviet zone and reserved no guaranteed access routes to the city from the British and American zones." It is interesting to note that Philip E. Mosely (CFR member who was Cordell Hull's adviser when the postwar division of Germany was first discussed at the Moscow Conference in 1943) succeeded George F. Kennan as political adviser to John G. Winant of the European Advisory Commission shortly after Kennan had persuaded Roosevelt to accept the Berlin zoning agreements. * * * * * It is easy to see why the Soviets wanted the Berlin arrangement which Roosevelt gave them. It is not difficult to see the British viewpoint: squeezed between the two giants who were his allies, Churchill tried to play the Soviets against the Americans, in the interest of getting the most he could for the future trade and commerce of England. But why would any American want (or, under any conditions, agree to) the crazy Berlin agreement? There are only three possible answers: (1) the Americans who set up the Berlin arrangement--which means, specifically, George F. Kennan and Philip E. Mosely, representing the Council on Foreign Relations--were ignorant fools; or (2) they _wanted_ to make Berlin a powder keg which the Soviets could use, at will, to intimidate the West; or (3) they wanted a permanent, ready source of war which the United States government could use, at any time, to salvage its own internationalist policies from criticism at home, by scaring the American people into "buckling down" and "tightening up" for "unity" behind our "courageous President" who is "calling the Kremlin bluff" by spending to prepare this nation for all-out war, if necessary, to "defend the interests of the free-world" in Berlin. George F. Kennan and Philip E. Mosely and the other men associated with them in the Council on Foreign Relations are not ignorant fools. I do not believe they are traitors who wanted to serve the interests of the Kremlin. So, in trying to assess their motives, I am left with one choice: they wanted to set Berlin up as a perpetual excuse for any kind of program which the Council on Foreign Relations might want the American government to adopt. Long, long ago, King Henry of England told Prince Hal that the way to run a country and keep the people from being too critical of how you run it, is to busy giddy minds with foreign quarrels. A study of President Kennedy's July 25, 1961, speech to the nation about Berlin, together with an examination of the spending program which he recommended to Congress a few hours later, plus a review of contemporary accounts of how the stampeded Congress rushed to give the President all he asked--such a study, set against the backdrop of our refusal to do anything vigorous with regard to the communist menace in Cuba, will, I think, justify my conclusions as to the motives of men, still in power, who created the Berlin situation. Chapter 3 FPA--WORLD AFFAIRS COUNCIL--IPR Through many interlocking organizations, the Council on Foreign Relations "educates" the public--and brings pressures upon Congress--to support CFR policies. All organizations, in this incredible propaganda web, work in their own way toward the objective of the Council on Foreign Relations: to create a one-world socialist system and to make America a part of it. All of the organizations have federal tax-exemption as "educational" groups; and they are all financed, in part, by tax-exempt foundations, the principal ones being Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie. Most of them also have close working relations with official agencies of the United States Government. The CFR does not have formal affiliation--and can therefore disclaim official connection with--its subsidiary propaganda agencies (except the Committees on Foreign Relations, organized by the CFR in 30 cities throughout the United States); but the real and effective interlock between all these groups can be shown not only by their common objective (one-world socialism) and a common source of income (the foundations), but also by the overlapping of personnel: directors and officials of the Council on Foreign Relations are also officials in the interlocking organizations. * * * * * The Foreign Policy Association-World Affairs Center, 345 East 46th Street, New York 17, New York, is probably the most influential of all the agencies which can be shown as propaganda affiliates of the Council on Foreign Relations in matters concerned primarily with American foreign policy. On April 29, 1960, the March-April Term Grand Jury of Fulton County, Georgia, handed down a Presentment concerning subversive materials in schools, which said: "An extensive investigation has been made by the Jury into the Foreign Policy Association of New York City and its 'Great Decisions Program,' which it is sponsoring in our area.... "This matter was brought to our attention by the Americanism Committee of the Waldo M. Slaton Post 140, American Legion, and several other local patriotic groups. We were informed that the Great Decisions Program was being taught in our public high schools and by various well-meaning civic and religious groups, who were not aware of the past records of the leaders of the Foreign Policy Association, nor of the authors of the textbooks prescribed for this Great Decisions program. "Evidence was presented to us showing that some of these leaders and authors had a long record, dating back many years, in which they either belonged to, or actively supported left-wing or subversive organizations. "We further found that invitations to participate in these 'study groups' were being mailed throughout our county under the name of one of our local universities.... We learned that the prescribed booklets were available upon request in our local public libraries.... "The range of the activity by this organization has reached alarming proportions in the schools and civic groups in certain other areas in Georgia. Its spread is a matter of deep concern to this Jury and we, therefore, call upon all school officials throughout the state to be particularly alert to this insidious and subversive material. We further recommend that all textbook committee members--city, county and state--recognize the undesirable features of this material and take action to remove it from our schools. "Finally, we urge that all Grand Juries throughout the State of Georgia give matters of this nature their serious consideration." On June 30, 1960, the May-June Term Grand Jury of Fulton County, Georgia, handed down another Presentment, which said: "It is our understanding that the Foreign Policy Association's Great Decisions program, criticized by the March-April Grand Jury, Fulton County, has been removed from the Atlanta and Fulton County schools.... "Numerous letters from all over the United States have been received by this grand jury, from individuals and associations, commending the Presentment of the previous grand jury on the Foreign Policy Association. Not a single letter has been received by us criticizing these presentments." In September, 1960, the Americanism Committee of Waldo M. Slaton Post No. 140, The American Legion, 3905 Powers Ferry Road, N.W., Atlanta 5, Georgia, published a 112-page mimeographed book entitled _The Truth About the Foreign Policy Association_ (available directly from the Post at $1.00 per copy). In the Foreword to this book, the Americanism Committee says: "How can we account for our apathetic acceptance of the presence of this arch-murderer (Khrushchev, during his tour of the United States at Eisenhower's invitation) in America? What has so dulled our sense of moral values that we could look on without revulsion while he was being wined and dined by our officials? How could we dismiss with indifference the shameful spectacle of these officials posing for pictures with this grinning Russian assassin--pictures which we knew he would use to prove to communism's enslaved populations that the Americans are no longer their friends, but the friends of Khrushchev? "There is only one explanation for this lapse from the Americanism of former days: we are being brainwashed into the belief that we can safely do business with communism--brainwashed by an interlocked group of so-called 'educational' organizations offering 'do-it-yourself' courses which pretend to instruct the public in the intricacies of foreign policy, but which actually mask clever propaganda operations designed to sell 'co-existence' to Americans. There are many of these propaganda outfits working to undermine Americans' faith in America, but none, in our opinion, is as slick or as smooth or as dangerous as the Foreign Policy Association of Russian-born Vera Micheles Dean.... "This documented handbook has been prepared in response to numerous requests for duplicates of the file which formed the basis of the case (before the Fulton County Grand Juries) against the Foreign Policy Association. We hope that it will assist patriots everywhere in resisting the un-American propaganda of the Red China appeasers, the pro-Soviet apologists, the relativists, and other dangerous propagandists who are weakening Americans' sense of honor and their will to survive." _The Truth About The Foreign Policy Association_ sets out the communist front record of Vera Micheles Dean (who was Research Director of the FPA until shortly after the Legion Post made this exposure, when she resigned amidst almost-tearful words of praise and farewell on the part of FPA-WAC officials). The Legion Post booklet sets out the communist front records of various other persons connected with the FPA; it presents and analyzes several publications of the FPA, including materials used in the Great Decisions program; it reveals that FPA establishes respectability and public acceptance for itself by publicizing "endorsements" of prominent Americans; it shows that many of the FPA's claims of endorsements are false; it shows the interlocking connections and close working relationships between the Foreign Policy Association and other organizations, particularly the National Council of Churches; and it presents a great deal of general documentation on FPA's activities, operations, and connections. The Foreign Policy Association was organized in 1918 and incorporated under the laws of New York in 1928 (the Council on Foreign Relations was organized in 1919 and incorporated in 1921). Rockefeller and Carnegie money was responsible for both FPA and CFR becoming powerful organizations. The late U. S. Congressman Louis T. McFadden (Pennsylvania), as early as 1934, said that the Foreign Policy Association, working in close conjunction with a comparable British group, was formed, largely under the aegis of Felix Frankfurter and Paul Warburg, to promote a "planned" or socialist economy in the United States, and to integrate the American system into a worldwide socialist system. Warburg and Frankfurter (early CFR members) were among the many influential persons who worked closely with Colonel Edward M. House, father of the Council on Foreign Relations. * * * * * From its early days, the Foreign Policy Association had interlocking personnel, and worked in close co-operation with the Institute of Pacific Relations, which was formed in 1925 as a tax-exempt educational organization, and which was financed by the great foundations--and by the same groups of businessmen and corporations which have always financed the CFR and the FPA. The IPR played a more important role than any other American organization in shaping public opinion and influencing official American policy with regard to Asia. For more than twenty years, the IPR influenced directly or indirectly the selection of Far Eastern scholars for important teaching posts in colleges and universities--and the selection of officials for posts concerning Asia in the State Department. The IPR publications were standard materials in most American colleges, in thirteen hundred public school systems, and in the armed forces; and millions of IPR publications were distributed to all these institutions. Along toward the end of World War II, there were rumblings that the powerful IPR might be a communist front, despite its respectable fa�ade--despite the fact that a great majority of its members were Americans whose patriotism and integrity were beyond question. * * * * * In 1951, the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, under the chairmanship of the late Pat McCarran (Democrat, Nevada) began an investigation which lasted many months and became the most important, careful, and productive investigation ever conducted by a committee of Congress. The McCarran investigation of the IPR was predicated on the assumption that United States diplomacy had never suffered a more disastrous defeat than in its failure to avert the communist conquest of China. The communist conquest of China led to the Korean war; and the tragic mishandling of this war on the part of Washington and United Nations officialdom destroyed American prestige throughout Asia, and built Chinese communist military power into a menacing colossus. The Senate investigation revealed that the American policy decisions which produced these disastrous consequences were made by IPR officials who were traitors, or under the influence of traitors, whose allegiance lay in Moscow. Owen Lattimore, guiding light of the IPR during its most important years (and also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations), was termed a conscious articulate instrument of the Soviet international conspiracy. Alger Hiss (a CFR member who was later identified as a Soviet spy) was closely tied in with the IPR during his long and influential career in government service. Hiss became a trustee of the IPR after his resignation from the State Department. The secret information which Hiss delivered to a Soviet spy ring in the 1930's kept the Soviets apprised of American activity in the Far East. Lauchlin Currie (also a member of the CFR) was an administrative assistant to President Roosevelt. Harry Dexter White virtually ran the Treasury Department under both Roosevelt and Truman. Both Currie and White had strong connections with the IPR; and both were Soviet spies--who not only channeled important American secrets to Soviet military intelligence, but also influenced and formulated American policies to suit the Soviets. By the time the McCarran investigation ended, the whole nation knew that the IPR was, as the McCarran committee had characterized it, a transmission belt for Soviet propaganda in the United States. The IPR, thoroughly discredited, had lost its power and influence; but its work was carried on, without any perceptible decline in effectiveness, by the Foreign Policy Association. * * * * * The FPA did this job through its Councils on World Affairs, which had been set up in key cities throughout the United States. These councils are all "anti-communist." They include among their members the business, financial, social, cultural, and educational leaders of the community. Their announced purpose is to help citizens become better informed on international affairs and foreign policy. To this end, they arrange public discussion groups, forums, seminars in connection with local schools and colleges, radio-television programs, and lecture series. They distribute a mammoth quantity of expensively produced material--to schools, civic clubs, discussion groups, and so on, at little or no cost. The Councils bring world-renowned speakers to their community. Hence, Council events generally make headlines and get wide coverage on radio and television. The Foreign Policy Associations' Councils on World Affairs, through the parent organization, through the Council on Foreign Relations, and through a multitude of other channels, have close working relationships with the State Department. Hence, many of the distinguished speakers whom the Councils present are handpicked by the State Department; and they travel (sometimes from distant foreign lands) at United States taxpayers' expense. To avert criticism (or to provide themselves with ammunition against criticism when it arises) that they are nothing but internationalist propaganda agencies, the Councils on World Affairs distribute a little literature which, and present a few speakers who, give the general appearance of being against the internationalist program of one-world socialism. But their anti-internationalism presentations are generally milk-and-water middle-of-the-roadism which is virtually meaningless. Most Councils-on-World-Affairs presentations give persuasive internationalist propaganda. Thus, the Foreign Policy Association, through its Councils on World Affairs--and another affiliated activity, the Great Decisions program--has managed to enroll some "conservative" community leadership into an effective propaganda effort for one-world socialism. The World Affairs Center was set up with national headquarters at 345 East 46th Street in New York City, as a formal affiliate of the Foreign Policy Association, to handle the important job of directing the various "independent" Councils on World Affairs, located in major cities throughout the nation. In March, 1960, the FPA merged with the World Affairs Center to form one organization: the Foreign Policy Association-World Affairs Center. * * * * * The FPA-WAC describes its Great Decisions program as an annual nation-wide review, by local groups under local sponsorship, of problems affecting United States Foreign Policy. FPA-WAC provides Fact Sheet Kits, which contain reading material for these local discussion groups. These kits present what FPA calls a "common fund of information" for all participants. They also provide an "opinion" ballot which permits each participant, at the end of the Great Decisions discussion program, to register his viewpoint and send it to officials in Washington. The old IPR line (fostering American policies which helped communists take over China) was that the Chinese communists were not communists at all but democratic "agrarian reformers" whom the Chinese people loved and respected, and whom the Chinese people were going to install as the rulers of new China, regardless of what America did; and that, therefore, it was in our best interest to be friendly with these "agrarian reformers" so that China would remain a friendly power once the "reformers" took over. A major objective of the FPA-WAC--since it fell heir to the work of the IPR--is to foster American diplomatic recognition of red China. The FPA-WAC, and its subordinate Councils on World Affairs, do this propaganda job most cleverly. Most FPA spokesmen (except a few like Cyrus Eaton, who is a darling of the FPA and occasionally writes for its publications) are "anti-communists" who admit that the Chinese communists are real communists. They admit that it is not pleasant (in the wake of our memories of Korea) to think of extending diplomatic recognition to red China; and they do not always openly advocate such a move; but their literature and Great Decisions operations and other activities all subtly inculcate the idea that, however much we may dislike the Chinese communists, it is highly probable that we can best promote American interests by "eventually" recognizing red China. In this connection, the FPA-WAC Great Decisions program for 1957 was especially interesting. One question posed that year was "Should U. S. Deal With Red China?" Discussion of this topic was divided into four corollary questions: _Why Two Chinas? What are Red China's goals? Does Red China threaten 'uncommitted' Asia? Red China's record--what U. S. Policy?_ The FPA-WAC Fact Sheet Kit, which sets out background information for the "study" and "voting" on the red China question, contains nothing that would remind Americans of Chinese communist atrocities against our men in Korea or in any way make Americans really angry at the communists. In the discussion of the "two Chinas," the communists sound somewhat more attractive than the nationalists. In the discussion of red China's "goals," there is nothing about the communist goal of enslaving all Asia; there are simply statistics showing how much more progress red China has made than "democratic" India--with less outside help than "democratic" India has received from the United States. In the discussion of whether red China threatens the rest of Asia, the FPA-WAC material makes no inference that the reds are an evil, aggressive power--but it does let the reader know that the reds in China are a mighty military power that we must reckon with, in realistic terms. Nothing is said in the FPA-WAC Fact Sheet Kit about the communist rape of Tibet. Rather, one gets the impression that Tibet is a normal, traditional province of China which has now returned to the homeland. After studying the problems of communist China from this FPA-WAC "Fact Sheet," Great Decisions participants were given an opportunity to cast an "Opinion Ballot" on the four specific questions posed. The "Opinions" were already written out on the FPA-WAC ballot. The voter had only to select the opinion he liked best, and mark it. Here are the five choices of opinions given voters on the Foreign Policy Association's Great Decisions 1957 Opinion Ballot, concerning U. S. diplomatic recognition of red China. "a. Recognize Peiping now, because we can deal with Far East political and other problems more easily if we have diplomatic relations with Peiping. "b. Go slow on recognizing them but agree to further talks and, if progress is made, be willing to grant recognition at some future date. "c. Refuse to recognize them under any circumstances. "d. Acknowledge that the Peiping government is the effective government of China (recognition _de facto_) and deal with it as much as seems useful, on this basis, but avoid full diplomatic relations for the present. "e. Other." * * * * * General purposes of the Foreign Policy Association-World Affairs Center are rather well indicated in a fund-raising letter, mailed to American businessmen all over the nation, on February 23, 1961. The letter was on the letterhead of Consolidated Foods Corporation, 135 South La Salle Street, Chicago 3, Illinois, and was signed by Nathan Cummings, Chairman of the Board. Here is a part of Mr. Cummings' appeal to other businessmen to contribute money to the FPA-WAC: "In his inaugural address which I had the privilege of personally hearing in Washington, President Kennedy summoned the American people to responsibility in foreign policy: ... "This call for individual initiative by the President characterizes the kind of citizen responsibility in world affairs which the Foreign Policy Association-World Affairs Center has been energetically trying to build since its founding in 1918.... "The FPA-WAC's national program for informing the American public of the urgent matters of foreign policy such as those mentioned by the President--'the survival and the success of liberty,' 'inspection and control of arms,' the forging of 'a grand and global alliance' to 'assure a more fruitful life for all mankind'--is making remarkable progress. "The enclosed 'Memorandum: 1960-61' describes the program and past achievement of this 42-year-old organization. Particularly worthy of mention is their annual 'Great Decisions' program which last year engaged more than a quarter of a million Americans in eight weeks of discussion of U. S. foreign policy and reached hundreds of thousands of others with related radio, television and newspaper background programs and articles on these important topics. "Of the basic budget for 1960-61 of $1,140,700, nearly one-third must be raised from individual and corporate sources to meet minimal operating needs. The fact that over 400 major corporations, some of whom contribute as much as $5,000, already support FPA-WAC is evidence of the effectiveness and vitality of its educational program.... "I hope that you and your company will join ours in generously supporting this work." Erwin D. Canham, editor of _The Christian Science Monitor_, has caustically denounced the American Legion Post in Atlanta for its "attack" on the FPA. Mr. Canham, in a letter dated April 25, 1961, accused the American Legion Post of making a "completely false" statement when the Post contended that Mr. Canham and the _Monitor_ advocated the seating of red China in the UN. Mr. Canham said: "This newspaper's editorial policy has never espoused any such position." I have in my file a letter which Mr. Canham wrote, April 29, 1960, as editor of _The Christian Science Monitor_, on the _Monitor's_ letterhead. In this letter, Mr. Canham says: "I believe that the United States should open diplomatic relations with communist China." The interesting thing here is the coincidence of Mr. Canham's policy with regard to red China, and the policy of the Foreign Policy Association-World Affairs Center. The Great Decisions program for 1957 (discussed above) was obviously intended to lead Americans to acceptance of U. S. diplomatic recognition of red China. The same material, however, made it clear that the invisible government was not yet advocating the seating of red China in the UN! Do these backstairs formulators and managers of United States opinion and governmental policies have more respect for the UN than they have for the US? Or, do they fear that bringing red China into the UN (before U. S. recognition) would finish discrediting that already discredited organization and cause the American people to demand American withdrawal? Christian Scientists (through Mr. Canham and the _Monitor_), Protestants (through the National Council of Churches), Quakers (through the American Friends Service Committee), and Jews (through the American Jewish Committee, The Anti-Defamation League, and other organizations) are among the religious groups which have publicly supported activities of the Foreign Policy Association. Powerful Catholic personalities and publications have endorsed FPA work, too. On December 9, 1959, The Right Rev. Timothy F. O'Leary, Superintendent of Catholic Schools for the Archdiocese of Boston, wrote to all Catholic schools in the district, telling them that he was making plans for their participation with the World Affairs Council and the Foreign Policy Association in the Great Decisions 1960 Program. On November 27, 1960, _Our Sunday Visitor_ (largest and perhaps most influential Catholic newspaper in America) featured an article by Frank Folsom, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors of the Radio Corporation of America, and a leading Catholic layman. Mr. Folsom was effusive in his praise of the FPA-WAC Great Decisions program. * * * * * The interlock between the Council on Foreign Relations and the Foreign Policy Association-World Affairs Center can be seen in the list of officers and directors of the FPA-WAC: Eustace Seligman, Chairman of the FPA-WAC, is a partner in Sullivan and Cromwell, the law firm of the late John Foster Dulles, a leading CFR member. John W. Nason, President of FPA-WAC, is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Walter H. Wheeler, Jr., President of Pitney-Bowes, Inc., is Vice Chairman of FPA-WAC, and also a member of the CFR. Gerald F. Beal, of the J. Henry Schroeder Banking Corporation of New York, is Treasurer of FPA-WAC, and also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Mrs. Andrew G. Carey is Secretary of FPA-WAC. Her husband is a member of the CFR. Emile E. Soubry, Executive Vice President and Director of the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, is Chairman of the Executive Committee of FPA-WAC, and also a member of the CFR. Benjamin J. Buttenwieser, of Kuhn, Loeb, and Company, in New York, is a member of the Executive Committee of FPA-WAC, and also a member of the CFR. Joseph E. Johnson (old friend of Alger Hiss, who succeeded Hiss as President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) is a member of the Executive Committee of the FPA-WAC, and also a member of the CFR. Harold F. Linder, Vice Chairman of the General American Investors Company, is a member of the Executive Committee of FPA-WAC, and also a member of the CFR. A. William Loos, Executive Director of the Church Peace Union, is a member of the Executive Committee of the FPA-WAC. Mr. Loos attended the CFR meeting with high communist party officials in the Soviet Union in May, 1961. Henry Siegbert, formerly a partner in the investment banking firm of Adolph Lewisohn & Sons, is a member of the Executive Committee of the FPA-WAC, and also a member of the CFR. Chapter 4 COMMITTEE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT On June 20, 1961, _The San Francisco Examiner_ published a United Press International news story with a June 19, Washington, D. C. date line, under the headline "J.F.K. Backs Tax Cut Plan." Here are portions of the article: "President Kennedy today urged Congress and the people to give a close study to a monetary reform proposal which would empower him to cut income taxes in recession periods. "He issued the statement after receiving a bulky report from the Commission of [sic] Money and Credit.... "The 27-member commission was set up in 1957 by the Committee for Economic Development (CED). Its three-year study was financed by $1.3 million in grants from the CED and the Ford and Merrill Foundation. "One of the key recommendations was to give the President limited power to cut the 20 percent tax rate on the first $2000 of personal income, if needed to help the economy.... "The report also recommended extensive changes in the Federal Reserve System, set up in 1913 as the core of the Nation's banking system...." This _San Francisco Examiner_ article is a classic example of propaganda disguised as straight news reporting. * * * * * A story about the President supporting a plan for reducing taxes could not fail to command sympathetic attention. But the truth is that the tax reform proposals of the Commission on Money and Credit would give the President as much power and leeway to _raise_ taxes as to lower them. In its 282-page report, the Commission made 87 separate proposals. One would permit the President (on his own initiative) to reduce the basic income-tax rate (the one that applies to practically every person who has any income at all) from 20% to 15%. It would also permit the President to raise the basic rate from 20% to 25%. The idea of giving the President such power is as alien to American political principles as communism itself is. The proposed "machinery" for granting such Presidential power would violate every basic principle of our constitutional system. Under the Commission's proposal, the President would announce that he was going to increase or decrease taxes. If, within sixty days, Congress did not veto the plan, it would become law, effective for six months, at which time it would have to be renewed by the same procedure. That is very similar to the Soviet way. It could not be more foreign to the American way if it had been lifted from the Soviet constitution. Other proposals in the report of the Commission on Money and Credit, filed on June 18, 1961, after a three-year study: 1. The Federal Reserve Act would be amended to give the President control over the Federal Reserve System--which, as set up in 1913, is supposed to be free of any kind of political control, from the White House or elsewhere. 2. The Commission recommends elimination of the legal requirement that the Federal Reserve System maintain a gold reserve as backing for American currency. A bill was introduced in Congress (May 9, 1961, by U. S. Congressman Abraham Multer, New York Democrat) to implement this Commission recommendation. The bill would take away from American citizens twelve billion dollars in gold which supports their own currency, and enable government to pour this gold out to foreigners, as long as it lasts, leaving Americans with a worthless currency, and at the mercy of foreign governments and bankers (see the _Dan Smoot Report_, "Gold and Treachery," May 22, 1961). 3. The banking laws of individual states would be ignored or invalidated: banking laws of 33 states prohibit mutual savings banks; the Commission on Money and Credit wants a federal law to permit such banks in all states. 4. The Commission would circumvent, if not eliminate, state laws governing the insurance industry: the Commission proposes a federal law which would permit insurance companies to obtain federal charters and claim federal, rather than state, regulation. 5. The Commission would subject all private pension funds to federal supervision. 6. The Commission would abolish congressional limitations on the size of the national debt--so that the debt could go as high as the President pleased, without any interference from Congress. 7. The Commission recommends that Congress approve all federal public works projects three years in advance, so that the President could order the projects _when he felt_ the economy needed stimulation. Remembering how President Kennedy and his administrative officials and congressional leaders used political extortion and promises of bribes with public money to force the House of Representatives, in January, 1961, to pack the House Rules Committee, imagine how the President could whip Congress, and the whole nation, into line if the President had just _some_ of the additional, unconstitutional power which the Commission on Money and Credit wants him to have. * * * * * The objective of the Commission on Money and Credit (to finish the conversion of America into a total socialist state, under the dictatorship of whatever "proletarian" happens to be enthroned in the White House) can be seen, between the lines, in the Commission's remarks about the "formidable problem" of unemployment. The Commission wants unemployment to drop to the point where the number of jobless workers will equal the number of vacant jobs! And the clear implication is that the federal government must adopt whatever policies necessary to create this condition. Such a condition can exist only in a slave system--like the socialist system of communist China where, for example, all "farmers" (men, women, and children) enjoy full employment; under the whips of overseers, on the collective farms of communism. The Commission on Money and Credit was created on November 21, 1957, by the Committee for Economic Development (CED). In the 1957 Annual Report of the CED, Mr. Donald K. David, CED Chairman, gave the history of the Commission on Money and Credit. Mr. David said: "CED began nine years ago [1948] to call attention to the need for a comprehensive reassessment of our entire system of money and credit. "When the last such survey of the economic scene was made by the Aldrich Commission in 1911, we had no central banking system, no guaranteed deposits or guaranteed mortgages. There were no personal or corporate income taxes; no group insurance plans, pension funds, or Social Security system.... "Although CED had envisaged a commission created by government, the inability of government to obtain the consensus required for launching the study became as apparent as the need for avoiding further delay. So, after receiving encouragement from other research institutions, leaders in Congress, the Administration, and from various leaders in private life, CED's Trustees decided to sponsor the effort, assisted by a grant from The Ford Foundation...." Here is the membership of the CED's Commission on Money and Credit: Frazar B. Wilde, Chairman (President of Connecticut General Life Insurance Company) Hans Christian Sonne, Vice-Chairman (New York; official in numerous foundations and related organizations, such as Twentieth Century Fund; American-Scandanavian Foundation; National Planning Association; and so on) Adolf A. Berle, Jr. (New York; Berle has been in and out of important posts in government for many years; he is an anti-communist socialist; he resigned from the Commission on Money and Credit to accept his present job handling Latin American affairs in the State Department) James B. Black (Chairman of the Board of Pacific Gas and Electric Company) Marriner S. Eccles (Chairman of the Board of the First Security Corporation; formerly Assistant to the Secretary of the Treasury under Roosevelt; Governor of Federal Reserve Board; and official in numerous international banking organizations, such as the Export-Import Bank) Lamar Fleming, Jr. (Chairman of the Board of Anderson, Clayton & Co., Houston, Texas) Henry H. Fowler (Washington, D.C.; resigned from the Commission on February 3 to accept appointment from Kennedy as Under Secretary of the Treasury) Gaylord A. Freeman, Jr. (President of the First National Bank, Chicago) Philip M. Klutznick (Park Forest, Ill., resigned from the Commission on February 8, to accept appointment from President Kennedy as United States Representative to the United Nations Economic and Social Council) Fred Lazarus, Jr. (Chairman of the Board of Federated Department Stores, Inc.) Isador Lubin (Professor of Public A