As much as I respect Gary North, he's placing way, way, way too much emphasis on the CFR, as many conspiratorialist crackpots do......The CFR is nothing more, and nothing less than a think tank.
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 8:19 AM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > *"This is why any attempt to warn conservatives about the latest > Republican Party presidential campaign is always regarded by them as an > attack from the Left. They think of themselves as being on the far Right, > and they cannot abide by any criticism based on the history of Republican > politics, basic economics, CFR influence, or anything else. They just > assume that the criticism has to come from somebody on the Left, because > they have been trained to think that the national conservatives within the > Republican Party's leadership do not share with Democrat liberals the same > background, ideology, social networks, and screening. They are outraged by > criticism. Why? Because they perceive that such criticism has an unstated > implication: they have been taken in. No one wants to hear this." > > **How the Council on Foreign Relations Controls Conservative Republicans > *by Gary North > *Tea Party Economist <http://teapartyeconomist.com> > > *I sent a stripped-down > version<http://teapartyeconomist.com/2012/08/31/dsouzas-anti-obama-documentary-if-only-it-were-true/>of > my movie review of > *2016* to my *Tea Party Economist* list. I knew it would outrage some of > them. > > Why did I do it? To make sure D'Souza sees it. The list is large. Someone > will send it to him. I want him to know that the Old Right isn't buying his > thesis that Obama's agenda is somehow uniquely wrong because it is > anti-colonialist. Obama is a defender of the American Empire as Bush was. > His agenda is that of one of the factions of the Council on Foreign > Relations. He is not in bed with the neocons, meaning big on Israel, but > the dominant foreign policy objectives of the CFR were pro-oil and > therefore pro-Arab long before 1948, let alone the late 1960s, when the > neocons showed up. > > In domestic policy, his rhetoric is Democrat. But this is nothing new. The > domestic policies of both CFR wings are the same: the maintenance of the > American Empire, what President Eisenhower in his Farewell Address (1961) > called the military-industrial complex. He should have called it the > military-industrial-oil-banking-AIPAC complex. This is why Clinton had > the Homeland Security legislation in > reserve<http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clinton_administration_anti-terrorism_law>, > and why Bush presented it to Congress when the nation was in hysteria over > 9-11. > > I have discussed Council on Foreign Relations Team A vs. Team B for 35 > years. I have seen two anti-CFR people get through the screening. > > The only exception to the vetting process over the last 80 years was Barry > Goldwater. When he got the nomination, the eastern wing of the Republican > Party walked out of the convention, and it would not provide the money to > let him win. The media turned against him overwhelmingly. The Council on > Foreign Relations members understood exactly what he meant in terms of a > threat to them, and they torpedoed his campaign. They cared not at all that > Lyndon Johnson would win. That was irrelevant to them. It is equally > irrelevant to them today whether Obama wins or loses. He is expendable. So > is Romney. > > > *REAGAN > > *Ronald Reagan also seems to be an exception. Here was one case in which > the elite really did have trouble suppressing his candidacy. He was too > good with the media, and he had already proven twice that he could win in > California. There were no real leaders in the Republican Party in early > 1980 – before Volcker's recession – who were capable of beating Carter. > > Reagan trounced George Bush in the primaries. He told his supporters in > the "Reagan Right" that he would not select Bush as his running mate. Yet > he reversed himself at the Republican National Convention. Not only did he > put Bush on the ticket, he turned the White House over to James Baker III, > Bush's senior advisor, then as now. Baker became Reagan's Chief of Staff. > Bush became the Presidential nominee in 1988. He needed the VP position. No > one since Herbert Hoover had been elected President without having been a > governor, a U.S. Senator, VP, or a victorious general. As soon as Bush was > inaugurated in 1989, he appointed Baker as his Secretary of State. Bush had > been a Skull & Bones member at Yale. He was married into the family of > Brown Brothers Harriman, the international private banking firm. He was a > CFR member. > > Reagan's initial cabinet contained only one person who could be regarded > as a philosophical conservative, James Watt, the Interior Secretary. He was > fired two years later. His replacement, William Clark, was conservative. He > was pushed out by Michael Deaver. He lasted two years. > > I have discussed the CFR's vetting process > here<http://lewrockwell.com/north/north1188.html> > . > > The story of the CFR is well known to those of us who have been in the > conservative wing of the party for over 50 years. It has been over half a > century since Dan Smoot wrote *The Invisible > Government*<https://www.amazon.com/dp/1463609671/ref=as_li_tf_til?tag=lewrockwell&camp=0&creative=0&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=1463609671&adid=0CN04B9Q49X4TPY7EJPW&;>(1960). > In late 1964, Robert Welch of the John Birch Society shifted his > entire life's work from anti-Communism to anti-conspiracy, and forced the > restructuring of the Birch Society's magazine, *American Opinion*. The > story of the CFR/Federal Reserve alliance has been known to the hard-core > Right for a generation. But it is still not known the standard > conservative, who came into the movement in 1980 or later. > > > *NAIVE CONSERVATIVES > > *This is why any attempt to warn conservatives about the latest > Republican Party presidential campaign is always regarded by them as an > attack from the Left. They think of themselves as being on the far Right, > and they cannot abide by any criticism based on the history of Republican > politics, basic economics, CFR influence, or anything else. They just > assume that the criticism has to come from somebody on the Left, because > they have been trained to think that the national conservatives within the > Republican Party's leadership do not share with Democrat liberals the same > background, ideology, social networks, and screening. They are outraged by > criticism. Why? Because they perceive that such criticism has an unstated > implication: they have been taken in. No one wants to hear this. > > D'Souza made a movie about Obama as anti-colonialist. This is utterly > irrelevant in American foreign policy. Franklin Roosevelt was an > anti-colonialist. He was an anti-*British* colonialist. He used World War > II to replace British colonialism. Harry Truman completed the process. The > Council on Foreign Relations supported this replacement. It still does. > Truman's recognition of the state of Israel had serious opponents in the > Council on Foreign Relations, most notably his Secretary of State, George > C. Marshall <http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4077.htm>. > Obama is extending a pre-Israel (1948), non-neoconservative (post-1965) > American agenda in foreign policy. D'Souza ignores all this in his movie. > So what if Obama is anti-British colonialism? It has been gone for 50 > years. The main theme of his movie is utterly irrelevant. It is simply a > neocon propaganda film well within the orbit CFR opinion against the > big-oil wing. > > The standard Republican conservative, being ignorant of the history of > American foreign policy since 1947, is blissfully unaware of this. > > Here is an example that I received from one subscriber. > > I am deeply offended by your liberal Mafia remarks. Your opinions are > far from fact and in fact are B.S. right out of the liberal handbook. > Sickening, misleading, untruthful and disgusting. America is not stupid as > you seem to think. Look in the mirror! > > I have been told this for over 40 years. In high school, I was taught by a > very conservative civics teacher, who was legendary in Southern California. > He was the most conservative public school high school teacher in the > region. About a decade after I graduated from his class, I was a teaching > assistant at the University of California, Riverside. One of his recent > graduates had been in one of my sections. I knew nothing about this. Later, > the teacher told me that this student had informed him that I was a > communist. This was at about the time that I was writing my book on Marx, > Marx's > Religion of > Revolution<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/093046415X?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=093046415X&linkCode=xm2&tag=lewrockwell> > . > > The student could not comprehend the meaning of communism. He could not > comprehend the difference between the Old Right and conservatism. At that > point, neoconservatism was only about three or four years old, so he > probably was not familiar with that strand of political theory. > > The conservative movement has always been filled with naïve people. People > are attracted to a fringe movement, rarely because of their understanding > of the mainstream, but only because they don't like the mainstream, and > they are determined to take a stand against it. The subtleties of the > political philosophy or economic theories of the group they joined are lost > on them. They got excited. They committed. And they now send their money to > the Republican Party, because it seems to be fighting all those terrible > liberals. The thought that the two parties have been completely vetted at > the top by the same group of elite deal-doers, who in fact are very famous > people, does not occur to them. The fact that, at the top of American > politics, the limits of discussion have been set by the same group of a few > thousand people, is lost on them. > > > *THE SUPERCLASS > > *When you realize that the process is international, as described in the > book by David Rothkopf, Superclass, it seems beyond belief. How is it that > approximately 6,000 people control virtually all of the agenda for the > Western nations? Your typical conservative probably would believe this with > respect to the internationalist connections of the elite. They would blame > the impotent UN. But they seem to feel that this elite did not begin the > screening process of the present leaders of both political parties three > decades or four decades earlier. These people say that they do not trust > the Ivy League, yet it never occurs to them that virtually everybody they > are asked to vote for as President is a graduate of one of two or possibly > three Ivy League universities. It never occurs to them that there is cause > and effect in education. It never occurs to them the Ivy League > universities are really, truly as good as the critics think they are with > respect to their ability to set the terms of discussion, meaning the > exclusion of the fringes on both the right and left, among those people who > graduated from the system. > > So, the political charade goes on. It will continue to go on until the day > that the federal government does not have the ability to write the checks > any longer. At that point, all over the world, the superclass will find > that they have lost legitimacy in the eyes of the people, and they have > lost the ability to control what happens at the local level. > > The key to this is a combination of money and intellectual screening at > the university and graduate school level. The elite defines the extreme > limits of acceptable discussion. The elite leaders do not attempt to tell > people what they ought to believe inside these limits. They do define what > constitutes extremism and therefore what constitutes an unacceptable list > of assumptions and policies within the network of the good old boys. > Communism is out. It has always been out. Libertarianism is obviously out. > Conservatism was out until Reagan was elected. There were a few early > conservatives who got inside the gates, the most famous being William F. > Buckley. Buckley got inside the gates early. He got into Yale, and he was > tapped to join Skull and Bones. Then he went into the CIA. So, he was > vetted very early. > > To get into the inner sanctum, you have to abandon extremism. Whether you > are from the Right or the Left, the extreme positions are not acceptable. > People who have spent their lives trying to get into the inner ring > understand the limits, and they accept them. This is how the limits of > acceptable discourse are imposed on the people who formulate policy, advise > presidents, and write for the establishment media outlets. None of this is > understood by the average conservative in the Republican Party. I think it > is much more understood by the far left members of the Democratic Party. > People on the far left believe in politics, and they learn how the game is > played early in their lives. Conservatives do not. > > So, it is easier for the CFR to control the terms of discourse on the > Right than on the Left, or so it seems most of the time. The far Left did > get sucked in by Obama's rhetoric in 2008. It is highly unlikely that they > will be sucked in again. They will probably vote for him. I doubt that they > will vote for Romney. They will not vote the same enthusiasm this time. > Voting to keep Guantanamo Bay filled with prisoners for another four years > is probably not high on their list of political mobilization. > > Conservatives think Guantanamo is great. So, anybody who thinks Guantanamo > should be shut down, as I do, is perceived automatically as somebody on the > Left. This is because there has been a long tradition within the > conservative movement to suppress civil rights. People who got into the > movement, and have spent time in the movement, assume that the suppression > of civil rights is okay. This is why Bush was able to get the Patriot Act > passed, when Clinton did not have the courage to introduce it to Congress. > It is easier to get conservatives to vote for something like this than it > is to get Democrats to vote for it. Of course, in a time of crisis, most > politicians will vote for anything that suppresses civil liberties. > > > *CONCLUSION > > *If the followers of Ron Paul will ever make any difference, they are > going to have to spread out and burrow in. They are going to have to go > back to their hometowns, get active in local politics, and spend the next > 25 years or even 50 years figuring out how the local system runs, and then > taking it over. This has to be a bottom-up transformation. There is no > possibility of capturing power at the top of either party. To capture > control of either party will require fringe people to go to the local > county level and to spend at least a generation, and maybe two generations, > building a political network that will enable them to control the terms of > discourse at the top. They have to do an end run around Harvard, Yale, and > Princeton. This will not be easy. > > www.garynorth.com > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
