A Nation Decieved: Council on Foreign Relations Sponsorship of Covert Activities at Home and Abroad

(Biblioteca Pleyades) 

Related Men Behind the Throne: The Unsettling History of Clandestine Organizations in America

Source – Biblioteca Pleyades

by Staff Writer, 

The CFR and the Church Committee Investigation

A recent e-mail contained a news release about Steven Emerson. It said,

” Mr. Emerson is an investigative journalist and noted authority on radical Islamic extremist groups and the policies and operations of Middle Eastern terrorist groups. He is the award- winning producer of “Jihad in America” and regularly provides expert testimony to Congress. Mr. Emerson has authored or co-authored four books.”

The e-mail contained the following request:

“According to the following news release, Steven Emerson will speak at a Capitol Hill briefing on Monday, August 31. Anyone who is able to attend should call the contact number listed below to reserve a space. Use the attached materials on Emerson’s history of Muslim bashing to ask FIRM but POLITE questions at the conclusion of the event.”

The e-mail didn’t mention Steven Emerson is a Council on Foreign Relations member.

In 1994 CFR member William Clinton’s Council on Foreign Relations run administration began using the terrorist threat as an excuse to keep America in a state of perpetual National Security. The Council on Foreign Relations is the same group that planed and directed a psycho-political operation (psyop) called Mutually ASSured Destruction (MAD).

Latest warnings include the scenario of some rogue nation terrorizing the United States with a thermonuclear device or biological weapons.

On September 21^st, Reuter’s reporter Steve Holland, wrote,

“UNITED NATIONS (Reuters)

As his grand jury testimony drowned out his message Monday, President Clinton soldiered on with a U.N. speech urging a united international effort against terrorism, which he called a “threat to all humankind.” Looking haggard and tired, Clinton received sustained applause from standing world leaders and other delegates to the packed U.N. General Assembly as he walked out.”

Steve Holland and President Clinton are deceiving their audiences.

Clinton’s grand jury testimony was the testimony of an accomplished liar. A liar who lied to his wife about his adultery, and then lied to the nation about the lie to his wife. A liar who is not worried or ashamed to lie to anyone about anything. Clinton’s lie about adultery and his sex scandals are one lie in a history filled with lies.

Clinton’s UN terrorism message got out loud and clear. Clinton, a Council on Foreign Relations member, is bearing false witness to his audience. Clinton’s terrorism speech is another lie that enhances the terrorism. The speech conceals the group sponsoring the terrorism – the Council on Foreign Relations. By concealing the sponsor the terrorism becomes impossible to stop. By making it impossible to stop the terrorism the terrorists targets are made to feel helpless increasing their fear.

Steven Emerson is part of the Council on Foreign Relations secret team. Steven Emerson is playing a role in the CFR’s terrorist psyop. The Council on Foreign Relations works by targeting different groups and creating tension and hate between them. The Council on Foreign Relations works be creating an Enemy the American people will hate, loath, fear, and be willing to fight.

Emerson’s job is to create hate between Muslims and Christians. Emerson’s job is to keep the Council on Foreign Relations sponsorship of this hate a secret. The terrorist psycho-political operation is particularly nasty because target groups are being worked up to murder innocent civilians. The CFR is setting in motion a situation that will bring an enemy to American soil to kill innocent men, women, and children.

If something isn’t done to stop the Council on Foreign Relations it is only a matter of time, until you or someone you love is injured or killed by an act of terrorism resulting from the CFR covert psycho-political operation.

In 1978 CFR member Emerson served on the staff of Frank Church’s Senate subcommittee investigating Aramco and Saudi oil production. Subpoena power persuaded SoCal and Exxon, to produce some information. The investigation failed to uncover the links between Aramco, Saudi oil production and the Council on Foreign Relations.

This was not the first Church run Senate committee investigation, staffed by Council on Foreign Relations members that failed to link the Council on Foreign Relations to wrong-doings. This was not the first Senate Committee that was mislead and lied to by Council on Foreign Relations members.

In 1975 during its first session the 94^th Congress passed Senate Resolution 21. The resolution created a Senate Committee, chaired by Senator Frank Church, tasked with investigating intelligence activities of the CIA, FBI, and NSA. The Senate Committee’s charter was to find out who was responsible for numerous civil liberty violations.

The committee successfully established that the civil liberties of American citizens were violated.

The committee discovered that a group called the “40 committee played a key role in coordinating the wrong-doings abroad.” What the committee did not discover was that the “40 committee” evolved from the Council on Foreign Relations designed Psychological Strategy Board; was staffed and run by Council on Foreign Relations members; and coordinated psycho-political covert operations focused at American citizens violating their civil rights.

The civil liberty violations that existed in 1975 exist today. The following information provides evidence that Council on Foreign Relations members on the committee and who testified before the committee worked together to obstruct justice and keep CFR sponsorship of the psycho-political operations a secret. The sources of the information are contained in the footnotes.

The sources are in the public domain and can be found by visiting your Federal Depository and Public Libraries.

The Church Committee’s real name is the US Senate Select Committee To Study Governmental Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities.

On Tuesday, September 23, 1975 Senator Frank Church of Idaho called the committee to order.

Senator Church said,

“The end of our involvement in Vietnam brought to a close a tragic and turbulent chapter in American history. In Southeast Asia, well over 50,000 American soldiers lost their lives.

Here at home, massive antiwar demonstrations filled the streets. At Kent State and Jackson State, college students were shot down as they protested the policies of their Government.

Just as the country was obsessed by Vietnam, so too the White House became transfixed by the wave of domestic protest that swept the country. On June 5, 1970, President Nixon called in J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI, Richard Helms of the CIA, and others from military intelligence agencies. He charged them with getting better information on domestic dissenters, and directed them to determine whether they were subject to foreign influence.

After a series of meetings throughout June 1970, a special report was prepared for the President. It set forth several options which ranged from the innocuous to the extreme, from doing nothing to violating the civil liberties of American citizens. In a memorandum, White House aide Tom Charles Huston recommended the extreme options to the President. These recommendations have become known as the Huston plan. The President approved the plan, and it was sent to the FBI, CIA, and the military intelligence agencies for implementation.

Some provisions of the plan were clearly unconstitutional; others violated Federal statutes. As the distinguished American journalist Theodore White has observed, the Huston plan would have permitted Federal authorities to reach “all the way to every mailbox, every college campus, every telephone, every home.”

Five days after the President approved the plan, he revoked it at the insistence of the FBI Director and Attorney General – to the dismay of those CIA, NSA, and FBI representatives who helped Huston develop it.

All this is a part of the public record, thanks to Senator Sam Ervin’s hearings on Watergate. Yet, the matter does not rest here. Our investigations have revealed that the Huston plan itself was only an episode in the lawlessness which preceded and followed its brief existence.

First we have discovered that unlawful mail openings were being conducted long before the President was asked to authorize them in June 1970. The President and Mr. Huston, it appears, were deceived by the intelligence officials.

Second, even though the President revoked his approval of the Huston plan, the intelligence agencies paid no heed to the revocation. Instead, they continued the very practices for which they had sought presidential authority, expanding some of them and reinstating others which had been abolished years before. As in the case of the shellfish toxin, the decision of the President seemed to matter little.

Finally, the Huston plan, as we know know, must be viewed as but one episode in a continuous effort by the intelligence agencies to secure the sanction of higher authority for expanded surveillance at home and abroad.

As these hearings will reveal, the leaders of the CIA and individuals within the FBI continued to seek official blessing for the very wrongs envisaged in the Huston plan.

We open this public inquiry to reveal these dangers, and to begin the task of countering the erosion of our freedoms as American citizens.” 1

While the hearings successfully pointed out many wrong-doings, they didn’t identify the true sponsor of the wrong-doings – the Council on Foreign Relations.

It was The Council on Foreign Relations not the US Government who was responsible for the 50,000 American soldiers lost in Vietnam, and the policies protested against by the students at Kent State and Jackson State.

It was the Council on Foreign Relations who sponsored the reports, plans, and legislation that encouraged government agencies to violate the civil liberties of American citizens. Since CFR sponsorship was not disclosed the Council on Foreign Relations continues the erosion of our freedoms as America citizens to this day.

The Senate Select Committee members were:

• Frank Church, Idaho, Chairman
• John G. Tower,Texas, Vice Chairman
• Philip A. Hart, Michigan
• Council on Foreign Relations member Walter Mondale, Minnesota
• Walter D. Huddleston, Kentucky
• Robert Morgan, North Carolina
• Gary Hart, Colorado
• Council on Foreign Relations member Howard H. Baker, Jr., Tennessee
• Barry Goldwater, Arizona
• Council on Foreign Relations member Charles McC. Mathais, Jr. Maryland
• Richard Schweiker, Pennsylvania
• Council on Foreign Relations member William G. Miller, Staff Director
• Council on Foreign Relations member Frederick A. O. Schwarz, Jr. Chief Counsel
• Curtis R. Smothers, Counsel to the Minority
• Audrey Hatry, Clerk of the Committee

Church Committee Staff members included:

• Council on Foreign Relations member Karl Inderfurth, Council on Foreign Relations member Zbigniew Brzezinski special assistant
• Council on Foreign Relations member David L. Aaron, deputy to Council on Foreign Relations member Zbigniew Brzezinski, and CFR member Walter Mondale’s personal designee to the Church committee.
• Council on Foreign Relations member Gregory Treverton, a staff specialist on Western Europe.
• Council on Foreign Relations member Richard K. Betts, NSC consultant.
• Council on Foreign Relations member Lynn Etheridge Davis, who authored the initial draft of the Church Committee’s report dealing with the National Security Council.2
• Council on Foreign Relations member William B. Bader, professional staff member.

All of the Church Committee Council on Foreign Relations Staff members would be chosen to work in Council on Foreign Relations member Jimmy Carter’s presidential administration. At least two, Karl Inderfurth and Lynn Etheridge Davis work in Council on Foreign Relations member Bill Clinton’s administration.

Senate Resolution 21 resulted in seven hearings before the Church Committee. The subjects of the Hearings included:

• Hearing 1

September 16,17, and 18 1975 – Unauthorized Storage of Toxic Agents. The CIA’s Involvement in the development of bacteriological warfare materials.3

• Hearing 2

September 23, 24 and 25 1975 – The Huston Plan. A plan to permit Federal Authorities, including the FBI, CIA, NSA, and military intelligence agencies to use unconstitutional methods of gathering information about people labeled as domestic dissenters.⁴

• Hearing 3

October 2, 1975 – The Internal Revenue Service. The FBI’s use of IRS tax information to disrupt political activists and to harass citizens for political reasons.⁵

• Hearing 4

October 21, 22, and 24, 1975 – Mail Opening. Why the Federal Government had been opening the mail of American citizens for over two decades.⁶

• Hearing 5

October 29 and November 6, 1975 – The National Security Agency and Fourth Amendment Rights. The fourth amendment is,

• • “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be tolerated, and no Warrants shall be issued, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The committee investigated the NSA’s capacity to monitor the private communications of American citizens by using technology for intercepting international communications signals sent through the air to monitor domestic communications. Like the CIA, and IRS the NSA had a “watch list” containing the names of US citizens.

The dominate concern of the committee was the intrusion by the Federal Government into the inalienable rights guaranteed Americans by the Constitution.

The hearing revealed the NSA did not escape the temptation to have its operations expanded into provinces protected by the law.⁷

• Hearing 6

November 18, 19, December 2,3,9, 10, and 11, 1975 – The Federal Bureau of Investigation. The investigation of the domestic intelligence activities of the FBI, concentrating on domestic surveillance programs, and an inquiry into FBI intelligence activities relating to foreign espionage and national defense.⁸

• Hearing 7

December 4, and 5 1975- Covert Action. The committee investigated the involvement of the United States in covert activities in Chile from 1963 through 1973.

The Council on Foreign Relations Forty-Committee

In his opening remarks at the Church Committee’s 7^th hearing, on December 4, Senator Frank Church said,

“The nature and extent of the American role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Chilean Government are matters for deep and continuing public concern. While much of this sad story had been revealed already, the public record remains a jumble of allegations, distortions, and half-truths. This record must be set straight.

[CFR member] President Ford has defended covert US activities in Chile during 1970-73 as “in the best interest of the Chilean people and certainly in our best interest.” Why is that so? What was there about the situation in Chile and the threat it posed to our national security which made covert intervention into political affairs of another democratic country either good for Chile or necessary for the United States? These questions must be answered. The committee’s purpose is less to pass judgment on what has been done than to understand, so that it may frame appropriate legislation and recommendations to govern what will be done in the future.

Given the President’s statement, it is particularly unfortunate in my opinion that the administration has refused to testify and has planned to boycott the committee’s hearings. The American people deserve to know the reason why the United States first undertook extensive, if not massive, covert operations within a democratic state in this hemisphere. They deserve to know why their Government sought, in 1970, to overthrow a popularly elected government.

The administrations [there were over 100 CFR members in Nixon’s administration] prohibition on testifying in a public forum on this subject has extended to the point of preventing CIA employees, both past and present, from coming before this committee. I find this particularly ironic since I spent the whole morning at the Pacxem in Terris [Peace on Earth] conference at the Sheraton Park Hotel here in Washington, publicly debating with [CFR member] Mr. Colby the covert operations that occurred in Chile during the period under investigation.

And so it is not denied to him to discuss such matters publicly and before the assembled press at the Sheraton Park Hotel. It is denied him that he should come and testify here at the Capitol before this committee.

I believe the position of the [Council on Foreign Relations run] administration is completely unjustified. [CFR member] Secretary Kissinger has argued that it would be inappropriate to appear before Congress and the American people to discuss covert action operations in which he was involved, yet only last week he gave a speech defending covert action. If the Secretary can give speeches on covert action, I believe he should be prepared to answer questions before Congress and the people of the country…” ⁹

The Church Committee would never learn,

“the reason why the United States first undertook extensive, if not massive, covert operations within a democratic state in this hemisphere, [or] why their Government sought, in 1970, to overthrow a popularly elected government.”

The reason was that a small group of selfish greedy men who belonged to the Council on Foreign Relations, had taken control of the United States government, and used massive covert operations to create tension and hate between different groups of people throughout the world.

By creating tension and hate the Council on Foreign Relations kept the world in a state of perpetual warfare. While countless millions of people suffered from this condition Council on Foreign Relations medicine, munitions, media, food and energy industries at home and abroad reaped obscene profits. Today CFR members control more than 3/4ths of our nations wealth.

President Ford, CIA director William Colby and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger were all Council on Foreign Relations members. Over 100 CFR members served in the administration that refused to testify (see list at end of article).

At the hearing Council on Foreign Relations member Karl F. Inderfurth, Professional Staff Member of the Senate Select Committee stated,

“The United States was involved in the 1964 election on a massive scale. The Special Group, which was the predecessor of today’s 40 Committee, authorized over $3 million between 1962 and 1964 to prevent the election of a Socialist or Communist candidate. In all, a total of nearly $4 million was spent by the CIA on some 15 covert action projects. These projects ranged from organizing slum dwellers to passing funds to political parties.”¹⁰

CFR member Karl F. Inderfurth is misinforming and deceiving the Church committee by understating the power of the “Special-Group,” failing to trace the history of the “Special Group,” back through the Operations Coordinating Board, to the Psychological Strategy board;¹¹ and failing to inform the committee that all these groups were designed and staffed by members of the Council on Foreign Relations.

It was Council on Foreign Relations members that planned and coordinated the Chile psycho-political operation.

CFR member Inderfurth served in several government positions. From 1975 – 1976 he was a Professional Staff Member of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

From 1977 to 1979 he served on the staff of the National Security Council at the White House, as Special Assistant to CFR member Zbigniew Brzezinski, CFR member President Carter’s National Security Adviser. And from 1979 to 1981, Mr. Inderfurth was the Deputy Staff Director for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Following the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Inderfurth joined ABC News, first as a National Security Correspondent with a special focus on arms control.

Inderfurth was Moscow Correspondent for ABC News from February, 1989 to August 1991. In this capacity he reported on the historic transformation of the Soviet Union. During his two and a half year assignment, Mr. Inderfurth traveled to 12 of the then 15 Soviet republics and broadcast more than 400 reports for ABC News.¹² Was Inderfurth an intelligence operative doubling as a news correspondent?

Between 1963 and 1974 thirteen million dollars were spent on covert operations in Chile. Congress received some kind of briefing (sometimes before, sometimes after the fact) on projects totaling about 7.1 million dollars.¹³

The Church Committee Staff report on covert action in Chile contains a section on the 40 committee. The section leaves out key facts that connect the Council on Foreign Relations to the 40 committee. The number of Council on Foreign Relations members on the Church Committee and Church Committee staff provide compelling evidence that this information is missing by design.

Conspicuously absent from the section is the mention of the Psychological Strategy Board; the Operations Coordinating board; the CFR’s role in establishing these groups; and CFR 40 committee membership.

The section follows:

“1. 40 Committee Functions and Procedures

Throughout its history, the 40 Committee and its direct predecessors the 303 Committee and the Special Group – have had one overriding purpose to exercise Political control over covert operations abroad. The 40 Committee is charged with considering the objectives of any proposed activity, whether or not it would accomplish these aims, and in general whether or not it would be “proper” and in the American interest. Minutes and summaries of 40 Committee meetings on Chile indicate that, by and large, these considerations were discussed and occasionally debated by 40 Committee members.

In addition to exercising political control, the 40 Committee has been responsible for framing covert operations in such a way that they could later be “disavowed” or “plausibly denied” by the United States government – or at least by the President. In the case of Chile, of course, this proved to be an Impossible task. Not only was CIA involvement in Chile “blown,” but in September 1974, [CFR member] President Ford publicly acknowledged at a press conference U.S. covert involvement in Chile.

Before covert action proposals are presented to the Director for submission to the 40 Committee an internal CIA instruction states that they should be coordinated with the Department of State and that, ordinarily, concurrence by the ambassador to the country concerned is required. “Should,” and “ordinarily” were underscored for an important reason–major covert action proposals are not always coordinated among the various agencies. Nor, for that matter, are they always discussed and/or approved by the 40 Committee. The Chile case, demonstrates that in at least one instance, the so-called Track II activity, the President instructed the CIA not to inform nor coordinate this activity with the Departments of State or Defense or the ambassador in the field. Nor was the 40 Committee ever informed.

Not all covert activities are approved by the 40 Committee. Projects not deemed politically risky or involving large sums of money can be approved within the CIA. By CIA statistics, only about one-fourth of all covert action projects are considered by the 40 Committee. The Committee has not been able to determine what percentage of covert action projects conducted by the CIA in Chile were approved within the CIA or required 40 Committee authorization.

Despite this fact, the Committee has found evidence of projects not considered by the 40 Committee, thus conforming to this general authorization rule.

This is not to imply that the CIA undertook activities in Chile behind the back of the 40 Committee or without its approval. The Agency was simply following the authorization procedures for covert projects that then existed. These same procedures exist today.

There have been numerous criticisms of the 40 Committee procedures, some of which follow:

The criteria by which covert operation are brought before the 40 Committee appear to be fuzzy. The real degree of accountability for covert actions remains to be determined.

There is a basic conflict between sufficient consultation to insure accountability and sound decision on the one hand, and secure operations on the other. The risk of inadequate consultation may be aggravated by the more informal procedure of telephone clearances which has been used by the 40 Committee for the last few years.

The review of covert actions by the 40 Committee does not appear to be searching or thorough. There still appear to be serious risk that operations will end only when they come to grief.”¹⁴

The Joint Chiefs of Staff DoD Publication 1 (1987) Glossary of Department of Defense Military Associated Terms defines:

“COVERT OPERATIONS: (DoD, Interpol, Inter-American Defense Board)

Operations which are so planned and executed as to conceal the identity of or permit plausible denial by the sponsor. They differ from clandestine operations in that emphasis is placed on concealment of identity of sponsor rather than on concealment of the operation.”

The Senate Committee Report section on the 40 Committee is misleading.

The statement holds the CIA accountable for sponsorship of the covert operations. The Council on Foreign Relations, not the CIA was the party responsible for planning and coordinating the covert operations under investigation. The Director of the CIA, usually a Council on Foreign Relations member, was also a member of the 40 Committee.

Other 40 Committee members included the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, who were also Council on Foreign Relations members. Many Department of State Ambassadors are also CFR members.

The members of the 40 committee are much closer than the Senate committee report indicates. These men planed covert operations that would benefit the members of the Council on Foreign Relations and members of CFR branch organizations in other nations.

The 40 Committee was not only responsible for covert actions abroad but for covert actions focused at the American people. The CFR sponsored covert actions included fixing American presidential elections. The elections were rigged in such a way as to insure an administration, whether Democrat or Republican, packed with 100 or more Council on Foreign Relations members in key administrative positions.

In at least five instances the President was a Council on Foreign Relations member (Eisenhower, Ford, Carter, Bush, Clinton). Lists of Council on Foreign Relations members in the Nixon and Clinton administrations are at the end of this article. Similar lists can be made for every presidential administration from Woodrow Wilson on.

The CFR members on the Church committee’s failure to link the Council on Foreign Relations to the matters under investigation were playing a part in a covert operation. CFR member testimony before the committee and CFR members on the committee’s reaction to the testimony concealed Council on Foreign Relations sponsorship to the wrong-doings being investigated by design.

The accountability for the covert actions lies with the Council on Foreign Relations and their counterparts in other nations such as Britain’s Royal Institute of International Affairs. Besides membership in the Council on Foreign Relations President Ford was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations international organization the Bilderbergers.

The foreign nationals in the Bilderberger group have more influence on America then the American people’s Congressional representatives. President Clinton, and Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair are also Bilderberger members ¹⁵

CFR Coordination of Psycho-political Operations

The Psychological Strategy Board aka The Operations – Coordinating Board aka The Special Group aka The Forty Committee

The Council on Foreign Relations propaganda machine manipulates American Citizens to accept the particular climate of opinion the Council on Foreign Relations seeks to achieve in the world.

Council on Foreign Relations members working in an ad hoc committee called the “Special Group” and through a vast intragovernmental undercover infrastructure called the “Secret Team” formulate this opinion in the US. The Council on Foreign Relations, has methodically taken over the Department of State, The Federal Reserve, and the CIA.

The dominant Council on Foreign Relations members belong to an inner circle that plan and co-ordinate the psycho-political operations used to manipulate the American public. These are the Council on Foreign Relations members in the “Special Group.”

The rest of the Council on Foreign Relations members, past and present, inside and outside of the government, are part of a “Secret Team” that play key parts in carrying out the psycho-political operations. The “Secret Team” is set up as circles within circles. Not every Council member knows exactly what psycho-political operations are being planed or what their exact role in the operation is. This allows them to deny responsibility and deny Council sponsorship of the operation.

Secret Team circles include Council on Foreign Relations members in top positions in:

• the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government
• who control television, radio, and newspaper corporations
• who head the largest law firms
• who run the largest and most prestigious universities
• who direct the largest private foundations
• who direct the largest public corporations
• who direct and staff the major think tanks and University Institutes
• who hold top commands in the military

Up to 1961 every Secretary of State except Cordell Hull, and James Byrnes, were members of the Council on Foreign Relations.

The undersecretaries, almost to a man, were also Council on Foreign Relations members. Secretaries of state have frequently been foundation officers. CFR member Dean Rusk went from the State Department after the war, to the presidency of the Rockefeller Foundation from 1952-60, and then back to State for eight years as secretary. ¹⁶

CFR member John Foster Dulles was a trustee at Rockefeller while chairman at Carnegie.¹⁷ Other secretaries of state from the foundations included Edward R. Stettinius, Jr., Henry L. Stimson, Frank B. Kellogg, and Charles Evans Hughes. ¹⁸

In the 1950’s Psychological operations, were coordinated by a Governmental agency called the Psychological Strategy Board. The architect of the Psychological Strategy Board was Gordon Gray. Gray had a consultant named Henry Kissinger. Kissinger was the paid political consultant to the Rockefeller family. Gordon Gray, Henry Kissinger, and many members of the Rockefeller family belonged the Council on Foreign Relations.

On Thursday 26 July 1951, President Truman would tell the press that the Psychological Strategy board was a part of the Central Intelligence Agency. ¹⁹

As head of the Office of Policy Coordination Council on Foreign Relations member, OSS veteran Frank Wisner ran most of the early peacetime covert operations. the The Office of Policy Coordination was funded by the CIA and integrated into the CIA’s Directorate of Plans in 1952, under Council on Foreign Relations member Allen Dulles.

Both Wisner and Dulles were enthusiastic about covert operations. By mid-1953 the department was operating with 7,200 personnel and 74 percent of the CIA’s total budget.²⁰

In the book 1984 Big Brother controlled the people by invading their privacy and using psychological manipulation to control and change reality through conscious deception, deliberate lying, and an official ideology that abounded in contradictions. The Council on Foreign Relations and its British counterpart the Royal Institute of International Affairs employ the same techniques to control people – including their fellow countrymen.

Hadley Cantril and Lloyd Free were Princeton University Social Psychologists; researchers; and members of the intelligence community. Council on Foreign Relations Member Nelson Rockefeller funded them to develop psycho-political policy strategies and techniques.

Council on Foreign Relations Member Edward R. Murrow, would, with Rockefeller Foundation Funding conduct a research project to perform a systematic analysis of Nazi radio propaganda techniques and the political use of radio. This study would result in a world wide monitoring and broadcasting Government agency called the Foreign Broadcast Intelligence Service (FBIS).

The FBIS would become the United States Information Agency (USIA). The USIA was established to achieve US foreign policy by influencing public attitude at home and abroad using psycho-political policy strategies.

The USIA Office of Research and reference service prepares data on psychological factors and propaganda problems considered by the Policy Planning Board in formulating psycho-political information policies for the National Security Council.

The Psychological Strategy Board became the renamed super-powered Operations Coordinating Board (OCB). The OCB had a vague ambiguous name that didn’t provoke curiosity. It had more members than the Psychological Strategy board. It had the same mission, to use psychological strategy, propaganda, and mass media, to manipulate huge groups of individuals. It had a psychological warfare machine – the United States Information Agency at its disposal. The USIA would be responsible for foreign policy propaganda for the NSC.

The National Security Council is responsible for recommending national security policy. The President for having the policy approved. The Operations Coordinating Board for coordinating interdepartmental aspects of operational policy plans to insure their timely and coordinated execution.

The National Security Council’s recommended national security policy is the de facto foreign policy of the United States. The Department of State’s Policy Planning Board scripted the policy for the NSC. The USIA Office of Research and Reference service prepared data on psychological factors and propaganda problems.

The Policy Planning Board used the data in formulating psycho-political information policies for the NSC.

In 1955 the Director of the USIA became a voting member of the Operations Coordinating board; USIA representatives were invited to attend meetings of the NSC Planning Board; and the USIA Director was invited to Cabinet meetings.²¹

From 1950-1953 CFR member Paul Nitze directed the Department of State Policy Planning Board. Nitze and crew scripted psycho-political operations for the National Security Council. ²² The Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), Johns Hopkins University, is the nation’s second oldest graduate school of international relations.

It was founded by Council on Foreign Relations members Paul Nitze and Christian Herter in 1943.23 SAIS Resident Faculty includes 36 professors. At least 20 are CFR members, two are CFR fellows.

SAIS Chairman and Dean CFR member Paul Wolfowitz, also directed the Department of State Policy Planning Board. Wolfowitz was undersecretary of defense during CFR member George Bush’s administration and served as assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs. He authored PRESERVING PEACE IN THE NUCLEAR AGE (1983) and numerous articles on political science, economics and defense issues.

Are the books, documentaries, and articles produced by SAIS faculty and alumni Department of State propaganda meant to trick, manipulate, and brainwash Americans into accepting Council on Foreign Relations doctrine?

On 19 February 1961, President John F. Kennedy issued a Statement abolishing the Operations Coordinating Board:

“I am today issuing an Executive Order abolishing the Operations Coordinating Board. This Board was used in the last Administration for work which we now plan to do in other ways. This action is part of our program for strengthening the responsibility of the individual departments.

First, we will center responsibility for much of the Board’s work in the Secretary of State. He expects to rely particularly on the Assistant Secretaries in charge of regional bureaus, and they in turn will consult closely with other departments and agencies. This will be our ordinary rule of continuing coordination of our work in relation to a country or area.”

Second, insofar as the Operations Coordinating Board – as a descendent of the old Psychological Strategy Board – was concerned with the impact of our actions on foreign opinion – our “image” abroad – we expect its work to be done in a number of ways; in my own office, in the State Department, under Mr. Murrow of USIA, and by all who are concerned with the spirit and meaning of our actions in foreign policy. We believe that appropriate coordination can be assured here without extensive formal machinery.

Third, insofar as the Operations Coordinating Board served as an instrument for ensuring action at the President’s direction, we plan to continue its work by maintaining direct communication with the responsible agencies, so that everyone will know what I have decided, while I in turn keep fully informed of the actions taken to carry out decisions.

We of course expect that the policy of the White House will be the policy of the Executive Branch as a whole, and we shall take such steps as are needed to ensure this result.

I expect the senior officials who served as formal members of the Operations Coordinating Board will still keep in close and informal touch with each other on problems of common interest.

Mr. Bromley Smith, who has been the Executive Officer of the Operations Coordinating Board, will continue to work with my Special Assistant, Mr. McGeorge Bundy [Bundy was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations ], in following up on White House decisions in the area of national security.

In these varied ways we intend that the net result shall be a strengthening of the process by which our policies are effectively coordinated and carried out, throughout the Executive Branch.”²⁴

Kennedy’s executive order didn’t dissolve the Operations Coordinating Board, it made it invisible. The OCB became an ad hoc committee called the “Special Group.”

In The CIA File, author David Wise writes,

“In The Invisible Government, published in 1964, Thomas B. Ross and I disclosed for the first time the existence of the “Special Group,” the interagency government committee customarily cited by intelligence officials as the principal mechanism for control of covert operations.

The special Group was also known during the Eisenhower years as the 54/12 Group and has been periodically renamed as the 303 committee – after a room number in the Executive Office Buildings – and during the Nixon administration, it acquired the name “Forty Committee. “…

It was this committee to which [CFR member] Allen Dulles was referring when he wrote in a now famous statement, ’The facts are that the CIA has never carried out any action of a political nature, given any support of any nature to any persons, potentates or movements, political or otherwise, without appropriate approval at high political level in our government outside the CIA. ’” ²⁵

Wise fails to connect the “Special Group” to the Operations Coordinating Board, or the Psychological Strategy Board, or the Council on Foreign Relations.

In 1975, Philip Agee, in the CIA DIARY, links the “Special Group” to the Operations Coordinating Board.

A box on an organization chart writes,

“Operations Co-ordination Board (OCB) (later renamed the 54-12 Group, The Special Group, the 303 group and the 40 Committee) Director of Central Intelligence, Under Secretary of State, Deputy Secretary of Defense are ad hoc members. ” ²⁶

Agee fails to connect the Operations Coordinating board to the Psychological Strategy Board, or the Council on Foreign Relations.

Air Force Intelligence Officer L. Fletcher Prouty writes,

“During the Eisenhower years the NSC, which at times was a large and unwieldy body, was reduced for special functions and responsibilities to smaller staffs. For purposes of administering the CIA among others, the NSC Planning Board was established. The men who actually sat as working members of this smaller group were not the Secretaries themselves.

These men are heads of vast organizations and have many demands upon their time. This means that even if they could attend most meetings, the essential criteria for leadership and continuity of the decision making-process simply could not be guaranteed.

Thus the sub-committee or special group idea was born, and these groups were made up of men especially designated for the task. In the case of the Special Group, called by many codes during the years, such as “Special Group 5412/2,” it consists of a designated representative of the President, of the Secretary of State, of the Secretary of Defense, and the Director of The Central Intelligence Agency in person. This dilution of the level of responsibility made it possible for the CIA to assume more and more power as the years went by, as new administrations established their own operating procedures, and the control intended by the law became changed.”²⁷

Prouty is understating what “this dilution did” – it made it impossible to dissolve the Special Group. Prouty fails to connect the “Special Group” to the Psychological Strategy board, the Operations Coordinating Board or the Council on Foreign Relations.

In an article titled Journalism and the CIA: The Mighty Wurlitzer, published on the Public Information Research (PIR – http://www.pir.org/) website NameBase NewsLine, No. 17, April-June 1997 we learn:

“The final months of 1977 produced three significant pieces of journalism on the CIA and the media, just before the issue was abandoned altogether. The first, by Joe Trento and Dave Roman, reported the connections between Copley Press and the CIA. Owner James S. Copley cooperated with the CIA for three decades.

A subsidiary, Copley News Service, was used as a CIA front in Latin America, while reporters at the Copley-owned San Diego Union and Evening News were instructed to spy on antiwar protesters for the FBI. No less than 23 news service employees were simultaneously working for the CIA. James Copley, who died in 1973, was also a leading figure behind the CIA-funded Inter-American Press Association.²⁸

The next article was by Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame. In a long piece in Rolling Stone, he came up with the figure of 400 American journalists over the past 25 years, based primarily on interviews with Church committee staffers.

This figure included stringers and freelancers who had an understanding that they were expected to help the CIA, as well as a small number of full-time CIA employees using journalism as a cover.

It did not include foreigners, nor did it include numerous Americans who traded favors with the CIA in the normal give-and-take between a journalist and his sources. In addition to some of the names already mentioned above, Bernstein supplied details on Stewart and Joseph Alsop, Henry Luce, Barry Bingham Sr. of the Louisville Courier-Journal, Hal Hendrix of the Miami News, columnist C.L. Sulzberger, Richard Salant of CBS, and Philip Graham and John Hayes of the Washington Post.

Bernstein concentrated more on the owners, executives, and editors of news organizations than on individual reporters.

“Let’s not pick on some poor reporters, for God’s sake,” William Colby said at one point to the Church committee’s investigators. “Let’s go to the management. They were witting.”

Bernstein noted that Colby had specific definitions for words such as “contract employee,” “agent,” “asset,” “accredited correspondent,” “editorial employee,” “freelance,” “stringer,” and even “reporter,” and through careful use of these words, the CIA,

“managed to obscure the most elemental fact about the relationships detailed in its files: i.e., that there was recognition by all parties involved that the cooperating journalists were working for the CIA – whether or not they were paid or had signed employment contracts.”²⁹

The reaction to Bernstein’s piece among mainstream media was to ignore it, or to suggest that it was sloppy and exaggerated.

Then two months later, the New York Times published the results of their “three-month inquiry by a team of Times reporters and researchers.” This three-part series not only confirmed Bernstein, but added a wealth of far-ranging details and contained twice as many names. Now almost everyone pretended not to notice.

The Times reported that over the last twenty years, the CIA owned or subsidized more than fifty newspapers, news services, radio stations, periodicals and other communications facilities, most of them overseas. These were used for propaganda efforts, or even as cover for operations. Another dozen foreign news organizations were infiltrated by paid CIA agents.

At least 22 American news organizations had employed American journalists who were also working for the CIA, and nearly a dozen American publishing houses printed some of the more than 1,000 books that had been produced or subsidized by the CIA. When asked in a 1976 interview whether the CIA had ever told its media agents what to write, William Colby replied, “Oh, sure, all the time.”

Since domestic propaganda was a violation of the their charter, the CIA defined the predictable effects of their foreign publications as “blowback” or “domestic fallout,” which they considered to be “inevitable and consequently permissible.” But former CIA employees told the Times that apart from this unintended blowback, “some CIA propaganda efforts, especially during the Vietnam War, had been carried out with a view toward their eventual impact in the United States.” The Times series concluded that at its peak, the CIA’s network “embraced more than 800 news and public information organizations and individuals.”³⁰

Conspicuously absent from the CIA and the media articles are links to the Council on Foreign Relations. How many of the journalists, owners, executives and editors that the reporters concentrated on were also members of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Are Joe Trento, Dave Roman, Carl Bernstein and the New York Times reporters near-sighted, poorly informed investigative journalists, or , CFR insiders or CIA operatives participating in keeping CFR sponsorship of covert operations a secret? Why haven’t they connected “The Special Group” (aka the 40-committee, aka the operations coordinating board, aka the psychological strategy board) to the Council on Foreign Relations?

Was deep throat the Council on Foreign Relations “Special Group?”

The House Committee Fails To Uncover

Council on Foreign Relations Sponsorship of Covert Activities Too

In 1975 the House also established a committee to look into constitutional violations committed by various intelligence agencies. The House committee was chaired by Otis PIke.

Under pressure from the executive branch, which contained over 100 Council on Foreign Relations members, the House voted not to release its report. The report was leaked to the Village Voice. The Voice printed the report. Arron Latham wrote an introduction summarizing the second section, “The Select Committee’s Investigative Record.”

Latham’s introduction talks about the 40-committee. Like the Senate, the House concluded the 40-committee coordinated covert operations focused at various nations including our own. In his introduction Latham writes,

“One of the most important conclusions reached by the Pike committee’s report is that the CIA is not a “rogue elephant” – as Senator Church, the chairman of the Senate select committee on intelligence, once called it.

The Pike report says “All evidence in hand suggests that the CIA, far from being out of control. has been utterly responsive to the instructions of the president and the the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.”

The committee came to this conclusion after an unprecedented study of all operations approved by the Forty-Committee over the past ten years.

The Forty-Committee, which is chaired by the president’s foreign polity adviser, is supposed to pass on all sensitive covert activities undertaken by the CIA. The Pike committee categorized different types of covert operations and looked for patterns.

It may surprise some to discover that the largest single category of covert activity concerned tampering with free elections around the world. These election operations make up a full 32 per-cent of the covert action projects approved by the Forty-Committee since 1961. The report says the operations usually mean “providing some form of financial election support to foreign parties and individuals.

Such support could :be negative as well ;as positive.” Most of the money has gone to developing countries and generally “to incumbent moderate party leaders and heads of state.” One “Third World leader” received $960,000 over a 14-year period.

The second largest covert action category is “media and propaganda.”

The committee found that 29 percent of the covert projects approved by the Forty-Committee fell under this heading. The report says:

“Activities have included support of friendly media, major propaganda efforts, insertion of articles into the local press, and distribution of books and leaflets. By far the largest single recipient has been a European publishing house funded since 1951.

About 25 percent of the program has been directed at the Soviet Bloc, in the publication and clandestine import and export of Western and Soviet dissident literature.”

The third largest category; is “Paramilitary/Arms Transfers.” These make up 23 percent of the total Forty-Committee approved covert action projects. Although these rank third in total numbers. They rank first in expense.

The committee report states:

“By far the most interesting, and important fact to emerge was the recognition that the great majority of these covert action projects were proposed by parties outside CIA.

Many of these programs were summarily ordered over CIA objections. CIA misgivings, however, were at times weakly expressed, as the CIA is afflicted with a ’can do’ attitude.” ³⁰

Latham writes,

“As a part of its investigation of covert action, the Pike committee examined three recent operations: our funding of pro-U.S. elements during the 1972 Italian election; our funding of the Kurdish rebellion in Iraq; and our assistance to one of the contending factions in Angola.

The committee report says that we Spent $I0 million in the 1972 Italian general election “perhaps needlessly.” The election produced not only a bitter struggle between Italy’s Christian Democratic party – it also produced an even more bitter struggle between our CIA station chief in Rome and our ambassador in Rome.”

If the Pike Committee had been more thorough they would have discovered that the first fully sanctioned and funded CIA covert operation resulted in the outcome of the Italian election of 1948, and that the Council on Foreign Relations played a significant part in carrying out the covert operation.

In “How Nations See Each Other.” (1953) Hadley Cantril writes about a tool, developed prior to 1939, to investigate people’s perception of their nationality and other nationalities. The tool became known as the Buchanan-Cantril “Adjective Check List.” ³²

The “Adjective Check List”, contained twelve adjectives: Hard-working; Intelligent; Practical; Generous; Brave; Progressive; Self-Controlled; Peace-Loving; Conceited; Cruel; Domineering; Backward. It was based on the observation people tend to ascribe to their group a set of characteristics different from the character traits ascribed to other groups.

The resulting self-image is predominantly flattering, while their picture of “others” is strongly influenced by how much they perceive those others to be like themselves. The relative “similarity” or dissimilarity” between group stereotypes is a useful indicator of the degree of like or dislike between groups or nations. ³³

The adjective check-list is used to help script and test the effectiveness of psycho-political operations focused at entire nations. Groups are tested to determine the degree of like/dislike between them. The Information is used to script the PSYOP. The PSYOP is carried out without the groups knowledge. The groups are tested again.

The increase or decrease of like/dislike indicates the PSYOP’s effectiveness.

The adjective check list was used to gather information Council on Foreign relations George Kennan used to script the 1948 Italian Election PSYOP. Lloyd Free broadcasted the script over the radio. Hadley Cantril evaluated the effectiveness of the broadcasts in influencing public opinion. The Italian public was manipulated into electing CFR insider Luigi Einaudi the President of Italy.

In 1948 Einaudi’s son Mario, was a professor at Cornell University. Among other projects Mario was a contributor to a book titled Foreign Government – The Dynamics of Politics Abroad.

Mario’s bio reads,

“Mairo Einaudi, a research fellow of the Rockefeller Foundation 1927-29, professor of government at Cornell University. He has been a faculty member of the University of Messina (Italy), Harvard University, and Fordham University. His principal fields of teaching are comparative government and political theory.

His books include a study of the political thought of Edmund Burke (1930) and Pysiocratic Doctrine of Judicial Control (1938). He is a frequent contributor to such journals as Foreign Affairs, Review of Politics, Social Research, and American Political Science Review. He has recently returned from an extended field investigation of Western Europe.”

Foreign Affairs magazine is published by the CFR. Today, Mario Einaudi and his son Luigi Einaudi ( President Einaudi’s grandson) are both CFR members.^{34  35}

At the end of his introduction, Latham writes,

“in many ways the moral of the Pike papers seems to be: controlling the intelligence community must begin with controlling Henry Kissinger.” ³⁶

Controlling the intelligence community must begin with controlling the Council on Foreign Relations. Both the Church Committee, and the Pike Committee investigated the 40-committee, finding it responsible for covert operations, and constitutional violations at home and abroad.

Neither Committee tied the Council on Foreign Relations to the 40-committee nor even mentioned the organization in their report. The 40-committee evolved from The Psychological Strategy Board.

The Psychological Strategy board was designed by Council on Foreign Relations members Gordon Gray and Henry Kissinger, and created by an Executive Order written by Harry Truman.

At the fifth hearing about the National Security Agency, Senator Church commented that,

“Actually the [National Security] Agency name is unknown to most Americans, either by its acronym or its full name. In contrast to the CIA, one has to search far and wide to find someone who has ever heard of the NSA. This is peculiar, because the National Security Agency is an immense installing…” ³⁷

If most Americans were unfamiliar with the NSA even more Americans, then and now are unfamiliar with the “Special Group” and the “Council on Foreign Relations.”

When CFR member Inderfurth testified, before the Church Committee about the 40-committee and special group he was misinforming the Senate Select committee. The 40 committee, can be traced to the Special Group, which can be traced to the Operation’s Coordinating Board which can be traced to the Psychological Strategy Board. All these groups were established and run by members of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Isn’t it illegal to misinform a Senate Committee? If any of the Council on Foreign Relations members sitting on the committee were not willing participants in a conspiracy to hide the Council on Foreign Relations sponsorship of covert activities, why didn’t any of them point out the links to the Council on Foreign Relations?

Were Council on Foreign Relations members on the Committee and who testified before the committee participating in a covert operation designed to cover up links of Governmental wrong doings, illegalities and abuse? Isn’t that treason?

The Pike Committee, discovered that America was mislead in such a way as to bring our country to the brink of war. In the Village Voice article, Latham wrote,

“Moving to the Holy Land, the committee reported, “The Mid-East war gave the intelligence community a real test of how it can perform when all its best technology and human skills are focused on a known world ’hot spot.’ It failed.”

The failure of our intelligence before the Arab assault has been generally recognized for some time, but the Pike Papers maintain that there may have been an even more serious intelligence failure after the attack.

Since we had not anticipated trouble in the Middle East. our spy satellites were caught out of position. We were therefore unable to monitor adequately the progress of the fighting and wound up relying “almost unquestioningly” on Israeli battle-field reports. We therefore believed the Israelis when they said they had not violated the cease-fire.

The Pike committee concluded:

“Thus misled. the U.S. clashed with the better-informed Soviets on the latter’s strong reaction to Israeli cease-fire violations. Soviet threats to intervene militarily were met with worldwide U.S. troop alert. Poor intelligence had brought America to the brink of war.”

Moving on to Portugal. the committee asked:

“Do our intelligence services know what-is going on beneath the surface in allied nations that are not making headlines.”

The answer on April 25, 1974, turned out to be no.

We failed equally to predict the first nuclear test in the Third World. It happened in India on May 18, 1974. A Defense Intelligence Analysis report issued shortly before the test carried this title:

“India: A nuclear weapons program will not likely be pursued in the near term.”

A CIA post-mortem report said of our intelligence blindspot:

“This failure denied the U.S. Government the option of considering diplomatic or other initiative to try to prevent this significant step in nuclear proliferation.” ³⁸

Our nation is still being deceived.

On June 11, 1997, CFR member President Clinton nominated CFR member Inderfurth to serve as the Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs . He was confirmed by the Senate on July 31 and took office on August 4.

Inderfurth has responsibility for the countries of India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Maldives. In addition to being a member of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, Inderfurth is also a member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London.39

With the help of CFR member Ambassador Inderfurth and his fellow CFR members, the world was recently brought to the brink of Nuclear War between India and Pakistan. Like 1974, the CIA was blamed for failing to anticipate nuclear tests in India. The tests were conducted on May 11, and 13th, 1998.

On September 14, CNN news reported a subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations committee held the first of several expected Congressional hearings on the issue of the testing. “I am astonished that the Indian government was able to catch the U.S. intelligence capability so sound asleep at the switch,” said Committee Chairman Jesse Helms, R-North Carolina.

On May 13^th, the day of the second test, Dorian Benkoil, ABCNEWS.com, reported, “India’s first nuclear blasts caught President Clinton by surprise. “Before this round of tests started, I did not know it was going to start,” Clinton said today. The president said he has ordered CIA Director George Tenet to launch a “thorough review” of U.S. intelligence in the matter.

Tenet on Tuesday appointed retired Adm. David Jeremiah to lead a review team that is to report in 10 days…

Today’s tests, apparently, were less of a surprise. A White House official told ABCNEWS’ Ann Compton that Undersecretary of State Thomas Pickering was not given assurances he sought after Monday’s explosions that no more tests would be conducted.” Thomas Pickering and Bill Clinton are Council on Foreign Relations members.

On May 17^th in,

“India nuke test fiasco leaves U.S. seeking answers,” John Diamond, Associated Press reported, “U.S. intelligence officials, lawmakers who oversee the CIA and outside experts point to a wide range of flaws – technical, organizational and human – that contributed to what Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Shelby, R-Ala., called a “colossal failure” by the CIA.”

Tuesday, August 18, the British Broadcasting Company (BBC) reported,

“The CIA did not spot Indian nuclear test preparations With the failure of US intelligence to detect both the East Africa bombings and India’s recent nuclear tests, Defense Correspondent Jonathan Marcus investigates whether the CIA is losing its edge.

The bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam came from out of the blue. America’s huge and sophisticated intelligence gathering machine seemingly provided no warnings of the attack….

Gone is the existential Soviet threat – replaced by a world more like the 1920s, where future threats are harder to define. New issues are forcing themselves onto the security agenda. Earlier this year, for instance, the CIA established an Environment Centre.

The CIA must also learn to work more closely with US law enforcement agencies like the FBI. The investigation of the bomb attacks against the US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya will provide an important test of this new inter-agency cooperation. ”

What neither the Pike or Church committees discovered was that it was the Council on Foreign Relations, not the CIA, that was responsible for deceiving the country.

While the CIA may have planned and conducted some covert operations without the express approval of the CFR run “Special Group [aka 40-Committee]”, Council on Foreign Relations members in the CIA and State Department made sure the “Special Group” was aware of all covert operations run by the CIA. If a covert operation would adversely effect a CFR plan, that covert operation would be sabotaged.

If the covert operation would help achieve CFR goals, the operation would be allowed to go forward, as if the “Special Group” had no knowledge of the operation. The “Special Group” has, and is using the CIA, to distract the Countries attention from the group that is responsible for the sponsorship and coordination of covert operations at home and abroad – The Council on Foreign Relations.

Shouldn’t the Church and Pike Committee Committee hearings be reopened, and revisited? Shouldn’t those Council on Foreign Relations members under investigation, who testified before the committees, and who served on the Committees be called before congress and made to explain their actions?

Shouldn’t the Council on Foreign Relations members in the “Special Group” [aka Psychological Strategy Board] and The Secret Team, who served during the Nixon Administration and participated in the Covert actions against Chile be indicted?

Shouldn’t Council on Foreign Relations links to the transfer of sensitive military technology to China be investigated? Council on Foreign Relations member Presidents Ford, Carter, Bush, and Clinton; the Council on Foreign Relations members who served in their administrations; and the Council on Foreign Relations members who served in non-CFR member Presidential administrations; should be called before Congress and made to acknowledge and explain the Council on Foreign Relations role in designing and coordinating covert operations at home and abroad.

The British Parliament should do the same with Bilderberger Prime Minister Tony Blair, and any other Prime Minister, and member of Parliament linked to Britain’s Royal Institute of International Affairs.

The Canadian Parliament should do the same with any Canadian Prime Minister, or Canadian member of Parliament linked to the Canadian Institute of International Affairs.

Title-50 War and National Defense § 783 states –

“It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to combine, conspire, or agree with any other person to perform any act which would substantially contribute to the establishment within the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship, the direction and control of which is to be vested in, or exercised by or under the domination of control of, any foreign government.”

The Council on Foreign Relations are in violation of Title-50 War and National Defense § 783.

The Council on Foreign Relations has unlawfully and knowingly combined, conspired, and agreed to substantially contribute to the establishment of one world order under the totalitarian dictatorship, the direction and the control of members of Council on Foreign Relations, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, and members of their branch organizations in various nations throughout the world.

That is totalitarianism on a global scale.

Nixon Council on Foreign Relations appointees – The Secret Team 30

Key players in the Council on Foreign Relations Clinton administration “Secret Team”

1. US Government Printing Office, Hearings Before the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities of the United States Senate, Ninety-Fourth Congress, Volume 2 (401 pages), Huston Plan, September 23, 24, and 25, 1975, For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, US Government Prining Office, Washington DC, 20402 -$4.00, 1976 pg 1-2
2. John Prodos, Keepers of The Keys, A History of the National Security Council from Truman to Bush, William Morrow and Company, Inc., New York 1991
3. US Government Printing Office, Hearings Before the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities of the United States Senate, Ninety-Fourth Congress, Volume 1 (245 pages), Unauthorized Storage of Toxic Agents, September 16, 17, and 18, 1975, For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, US Government Prining Office, Washington DC, 20402 -$2.45, 1976
4. US Government Printing Office, Hearings Before the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities of the United States Senate, Ninety-Fourth Congress, Volume 2 (401 pages), Huston Plan, September 23, 24, and 25, 1975, For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, US Government Prining Office, Washington DC, 20402 -$4.00, 1976
5. US Government Printing Office, Hearings Before the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities of the United States Senate, Ninety-Fourth Congress, Volume 3 (116 pages), Internal Revenue Service, October 2 1975, For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, US Government Prining Office, Washington DC, 20402 -$2.00, 1976
6. US Government Printing Office, Hearings Before the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities of the United States Senate, Ninety-Fourth Congress, Volume 4 (259 pages), Mail Opening, October 21, 22, and 24 1975, For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, US Government Prining Office, Washington DC, 20402 -$2.40, 1976
7. US Government Printing Office, Hearings Before the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities of the United States Senate, Ninety-Fourth Congress, Volume 5 (164 pages), The National Security Agency and Fourth Amendment Rights, October 29 and November 61975, For Sale by the Superintendent of Douments, US Government Printing Office, Washington DC, 20402 -$2.30, 1976
8. US Government Printing Office, Hearings Before the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities of the United States Senate, Ninety-Fourth Congress, Volume 6 (992 pages), The Federal Burea of Investigation, November 18, 19, December 2,3,9,10, and 11 1975, For Sale by the Superintendent of Douments, US Government Prining Office,Washington DC, 20402, 1976
9. US Government Printing Office, Hearings Before the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities of the United States Senate, Ninety-Fourth Congress, Volume 6 (992 pages), The Federal Burea of Investigation, November 18, 19, December 2,3,9,10, and 11 1975, For Sale by the Superintendent of Douments, US Government Prining Office,Washington DC, 20402, 1976
10. ibid pg 11
11. Harry S. Truman, Public Papers of Harry S. Truman 1951, US Government Printing Office 1963, [128] Directive Establishing the Psychological Strategy Board, pg 341
12. Biography, Karl Frederick Inderfurth Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs, U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Network, http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/biography/inderfurth.html, 09/15/98
13. US Government Printing Office, Hearings Before the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities of the United States Senate, Ninety-Fourth Congress, Volume 7 (230 pages), The Federal Burea of Investigation, November 18, 19, December 2,3,9,10, and 11 1975, For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, US Government Prining Office, Washington DC, 20402, 1976 pg 197
14. ibid pg 188-189
15. Who’s Who in America, 43rd edition, 1984-85.
16. Who’s Who in America, 26th edition, 1950-51.
17. Ferdinand Lundberg, The Rich and the Super-Rich (New York: Bantam Books, 1969). Chapter 10, titled “Philanthropic Vistas: The Tax-Exempt Foundations” (pp. 465-530), describes the Patman investigations pg. 482-483
18. Harry S. Truman, Public Papers of Harry S. Truman, US Government Printing Office 1963, 1951 July 27 [172] pg. 427.
19. Philip Agee, Inside the Company: CIA Diary (Harmondsworth, Middlesex,England: Penguin Books, 1975), pp. 70-71 from http://www.pir.org/.newslin.html Essays from NameBase NewsLine Apr 97 . . Journalism and the CIA: The Mighty Wurlitzer footnote 14
20. Henderson, John W.,The United States Information Agency, 1966, pg. 52-53 Frederick A. Praeger, Publishers, New York, Washington, London, Book 14 in the Praeger Library of US Government Departments and Agencies series, consulting editors Ernest S. Griffith, former Dean and Professor Emeritus, School Of International Service, American University. Hugh Langdon Elsbree, former Chairmen, Department of Political Science, Dartmouth College. Both editors are formed directors, Legislative Reference Service, Library of Congress.
21. Who’s Who 1994, pg 3076
22. Commencement Address by Mrs. Sadako Ogata, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, 22 May 1996, http://www.jhu.edu/news_info/commence96/ogata.html (the prepared text of Mrs. Ogata’s speech and has not been checked against delivery.)
23. John F. Kennedy, The Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, 1961
24. Robert L. Borosage and John Marks, The CIA File, Grossman Publishers A Division of Viking Press, 1976 pgs. 12-13.
25. Philip Agee, Inside the Company CIA Diary, Stonehill Publishing Co., 38 East 57 Street, New York, NY, 1975 pg 632
26. Prouty, L. Fletcher Col., US Air Force Retired, The Secret Team, The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World, copyright 1973 by L. Fletcher Prouty, Ballantine Books, Inc., 201 East 50th Street, New York, NY, First Printing 1974 pg 3-5
27. Joe Trento and Dave Roman, “The Spies Who Came In From the Newsroom,” Penthouse, August 1977, pp. 44-46, 50. http://www.pir.org/.newslin.html Essays from NameBase NewsLine Apr 97 . . Journalism and the CIA: The Mighty Wurlitzer footnote 13
28. Carl Bernstein, “The CIA and the Media,” Rolling Stone, 20 October1977, pp. 58. http://www.pir.org/.newslin.html Essays from NameBase NewsLine Apr 97 . . Journalism and the CIA: The Mighty Wurlitzer footnote 14
29. John M. Crewdson and Joseph B. Treaster, “The CIA’s 3-Decade Effort to Mold the World’s Views,” New York Times, 25 December 1977, pp. 1, 12; Terrence Smith, “CIA Contacts With Reporters,” New York Times, p. 13; Crewdson and Treaster, “Worldwide Propaganda Network Built by the CIA,” New York Times, 26 December 1977, pp. 1, 37; Crewdson and Treaster, “CIA Established Many Links to Journalists in U.S. and Abroad,” New York Times, 27 December 1977, pp. 1, 40-41. Essays from NameBase NewsLine Apr 97,Journalism and the CIA: The Mighty Wurlitzer footnote 15
30. Arron Latham, “The CIA Report the President Doesn’t Want You to Read, A 24 page special supplement”, Village Voice, 16 February 1976, “The Pike Papers: an Introduction” pg. 71
31. Pollock, Daniel C Project Director & Editors De Mclaurin,Ronald, Rosenthal, Carl F., Skillings, Sarah A., The Art and Science of Psychological Operations: Case Studies of Military Application Volume One, Pamphlet No. 725-7-2, DA Pam 525-7-2, Headquarters Department of the Army Washington, DC, 1 April 1976 Vol 2 pg 806 – The Hungarian Self-Image And The Hungarian Image of Americans and Russians by Radio Free Europe, Audience and Public Opinion Research Department, February 1970 Excerpts from “The Hungarian Self-Image and the Hungarian Image of Americans, Russian, Germans, Rumanians, and Chinese”; Buchanan, W. Cantril, H. “How Nations See Each Other,” University of Illinois Press, Urbana 1953; Cantril H. and Strunk M.: “Public Opinion 1935-1946” Princeton University Press
32. IBID
33. FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, The Dynamics of Politics Abroad, by Mario Einaudi, Andrew Gyorgy, John N. Hazard, Henry P. Jordan, Paul M. A. Linebarger, John Brown Mason, Frizt Morstein Marx, W. Hardy Wickwar, Edited by Fritz Morstein Mark, New York, Prentice Hall, 1949, pg ix
34. A co-contributor to FOREIGN GOVERNMENT was Paul Linebarger. Linebarger worked for Army Intelligence during World War II, serving under General’s Stillwell and Wedemeyer. At the end of the war he was chief of the Army Far Eastern Section, Propaganda Branch, G-2, General Staff. In 1948 Linebarger authored a book titled PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE. The book contained a chapter hopefully called “Psychological Warfare and Disarmament.” The Book was revised and reissued in 1954. The chapter on “Psychological Warfare and Disarmament” was removed from the revised edition. [PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE, Paul Myron Anthony Linebarger, School of Advanced International Studies, Combat Forces Press, 1529 18th Street, N.W. Washington 6 D.C., Second Edition 1954 pg xii]
35. IBID
36. US Government Printing Office, Hearings Before the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities of the United States Senate, Ninety-Fourth Congress, Volume 5 (164 pages), The National Security Agency and Fourth Amendment Rights, October 29 and November 61975, For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, US Government Printing Office, Washington DC, 20402 -$2.30, 1976 pg 1
37. Arron Latham, “The CIA Report the President Doesn’t Want You to Read, A 24 page special supplement”, Village Voice, 16 February 1976, “The Pike Papers: an Introduction” pg. 71
38. IBID
39. Gary Allen, Larry Abraham, None Dare Call it Conspiracy, Concord Press, Rossmoor, CA, 1971 pgs 139-40

Stillness in the Storm Editor: Why did we post this?

The news is important to all people because it is where we come to know new things about the world, which leads to the development of more life goals that lead to life wisdom. The news also serves as a social connection tool, as we tend to relate to those who know about and believe the things we do. With the power of an open truth-seeking mind in hand, the individual can grow wise and the collective can prosper. 

– Justin

Not sure how to make sense of this? Want to learn how to discern like a pro? Read this essential guide to discernment, analysis of claims, and understanding the truth in a world of deception: 4 Key Steps of Discernment – Advanced Truth-Seeking Tools.

---

Stillness in the Storm Editor’s note: Did you find a spelling error or grammatical mistake? Send an email to [email protected], with the error and suggested correction, along with the headline and url. Do you think this article needs an update? Or do you just have some feedback? Send us an email at [email protected]. Thank you for reading.

Source:

https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_cfr_09.htm