Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
Cont'd - THE POWER ELITE EXPOSED
Tue Mar 16 14:57:55 2004
64.140.158.3


Relevant to Prof. Quigley's reference to William C. Whitney’s plan for an alternation of power and the power elite’s promotion of Democrat and Republican presidential candidates whose foreign policy views are similarly globalist, Skull & Bones member George W. Bush then succeeded Bill Clinton as president, but foreign policy remained basically the same, which is what the power elite want. George W. Bush, his father, and Bill Clinton all supported such things as NAFTA, GATT, the World Trade Organization, U.N. peacekeeping operations, and Most Favored Nation trading status for Communist China. And like his father and Bill Clinton, President George W. Bush (whose website for his presidential campaign of 2000 was with Illuminati Online) has appointed notable CFR members to high-level positions in his administration. They include Colin Powell, Christine Todd Whitman, Elaine Chao, Condoleezza Rice and Robert Zoellick. Vice-President Dick Cheney is also a CFR member, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is a former CFR member.

In the presidential campaign of 2004, among the leading Democratic challengers to President Bush were General Wesley Clark (Rhodes scholar from Little Rock, Arkansas) and U.S. Senator John Edwards, whose primary domestic policy advisor was Bruce Reed (Rhodes scholar who was President Clinton’s Domestic Policy Council deputy assistant). Though each of these candidates won a state's primary, U.S. Senator John Kerry has won far more primary states and is the presumptive Democratic nominee for President. Like President George W. Bush, Sen. Kerry is also a member of Skull & Bones, so whether the Democratic or Republican nominee wins the election in November 2004, a member of Skull & Bones will be President. And like President Bush, Sen. Kerry has also supported NAFTA, GATT, etc., which are vitally important to the power elite.

At this point, someone might argue that neither President George H.W. Bush nor his son, President George W. Bush, promotes socialism per se, and that is correct. But it should be remembered that what is at work is a "process," and when President George H.W. Bush gave us national education goals and his son's federal education budget is the largest ever, including an element of "accountability" to the federal Department of Education, that cannot be considered a movement away from socialism. Similarly, when President George H.W. Bush and his son both show some deference to the U.N., which is overwhelmingly dominated by socialist nations, that cannot be considered a movement away from a world socialist government. Is there really any substantial difference between President George H.W. Bush saying the Gulf War against Iraq was conducted under the authority of a U.N. resolution, and Bill Clinton saying on October 19, 1993 regarding Somalia that his administration is engaging in a political process "to see how we can… do all things the United Nations ordered [us] to do"? And in case one doesn't believe the U.N. is pursuing world government status, what else can one call it when the U.N.'s International Criminal Tribunal claims the right to indict even an elected head of state of a sovereign nation and pursue him anywhere in the world?

Concerning the United Nations, one can find examples of both Rhodes scholar and Skull & Bones involvement. At the suggestion of President Clinton, U.N. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali made Rhodes scholar James Gustave Speth head of the U.N. Development Program. This was after Vice-President Bush in 1986 had recommended Skull & Bones member William Henry Draper III for the same position. Incidentally, Draper in 1977 had contributed $93,000 to Skull & Bones member George W. Bush's first company, Arbusto Energy, of which Salem bin Laden (Osama bin Laden's brother) was also a founder. Regarding other Skull & Bones members around George H.W. Bush (whose brother, Jonathan, is a member), Christopher Buckley (William F. Buckley, Jr.'s son) is a member of this Yale University secret society and was a speechwriter for Vice-President Bush. And member Bruce S. Gelb (CFR member) was director of the U.S. Information Agency and later Ambassador to Belgium after Vice-President Bush became President. And regarding President George W. Bush, he appointed a number of fellow Skull & Bones members including Edward McNally (General Counsel to the Office of Homeland Security), William Howard Taft IV (legal counsel to Secretary of State Colin Powell), and William Henry Donaldson (Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission).

In the U.S. Government, there has also been matching Rhodes scholar and Skull & bones involvement. In the executive branch, at the same time Rhodes scholar Strobe Talbott was becoming number two at the State Department, President Clinton had appointed Skull & Bones member Winston Lord (former CFR president) as an Assistant Secretary of State. And just as President John F. Kennedy had a number of Rhodes scholars at high levels in his administration, Skull & Bones members McGeorge Bundy and brother William Bundy occupied high-level positions then as well. William Bundy also worked for the CIA as have other Skull & Bones members such as William F. Buckley, Jr., his brother James Buckley, William Sloane Coffin, Archibald MacLeish, Richard Bissell, F. Trubee Davison, Amory Bradford Howe (general manager of The New York Times form the mid-1940s until 1963), Richard Drain, Howard Weaver, and Hugh Cunningham (also a Rhodes scholar). Skull & Bones member George H.W. Bush actually headed the CIA as have Rhodes scholars Stansfield Turner and James Woolsey.

Regarding the military, Skull & Bones member Henry Stimson (who initiated George H.W. Bush into the same secret society) was Secretary of War in the administration of President Franklin Roosevelt, and President Clinton appointed Rhodes scholar Gen. Wesley Clark as head of NATO forces. President Clinton also appointed Rhodes scholar Richard Danzig as Secretary of the Navy and Rhodes scholar Admiral Dennis C. Blair as Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Pacific Command.

In the legislative branch, a number of Rhodes scholars and Skull & Bones members have been in Congress, and former U.S. Senator David Boren (CFR member) is both a Rhodes scholar and Skull & Bones member, who on August 26, 1992 wrote an article in The New York Times advocating a rapid deployment force for the U.N. to facilitate "the new world order." During the Clinton presidency, Sen. Boren as a Rhodes scholar persuaded President Clinton to make George Tenet head of the CIA, and then Sen. Boren as a Skull & Bones member persuaded fellow Bonesman President George W. Bush to keep Tenet in that important position.

In the judicial branch, the U.S. Supreme Court has included Skull & Bones members Potter Stewart and William Howard Taft (Chief Justice), and Rhodes scholars John Harlan, David Souter, and Byron White. One of Justice White's law clerks was Rhodes scholar David Kendall, who was also President Clinton's attorney during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Outside of government, of course, Rhodes scholars and Skull & Bones members have also been involved in important areas of American life, such as finance. Earlier it was mentioned how quite a few Rhodes scholars have worked for Goldman-Sachs over the years, and Skull & Bones members Averell Harriman, his brother E. Roland Harriman, and Prescott Sheldon Bush (George H.W. Bush's father) were partners in Brown Brothers, Harriman & Co.

These individuals have formed a network of power over the years, and although not every Rhodes scholar and Skull & Bones member has been plotting to take over the world, they are, for the most part, an elite whose globalist goals must be resisted by Americans who oppose any diminution of our Constitutional freedoms or our national sovereignty.

How might this diminution occur? At the top of page 303 of my book, The Globalists: The Power Elite Exposed, published in July 2001, I state: "At the national level, this conditioning of the public might be brought about via certain crises, such as a terrorist attack.... For the sake of peace and security, people may be willing to give up certain of their freedoms to some extent." Then on September 11, terrorists attacked the Pentagon near Washington, D.C., and the World Trade Center in New York City, and a few hours later ABC News/Washington Post released poll results showing two-thirds "say they would sacrifice some personal liberties in support of anti-terrorism efforts." Does this mean the power elite plotted the attacks on September 11? After all, didn't the public affairs website indiareacts.com report on June 26 that the U.S. and Russia plan 'limited military action' against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don't bend Afghanistan's fundamentalist regime"? And didn't the PBS program "Jihad in America" in 1994 show radical Muslims speaking in the U.S. over a decade ago and saying they would attack our airplanes and go after our high buildings? And in the same year of 1994, didn't Islamic terrorists hijack a plane in Algiers, intending to fly the passenger aircraft full of fuel into a tall prominent structure, the Eiffel Tower, exploding the plane over Paris?

Closer to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, didn’t AirlineBiz.com on June 23, 2001 carry a report by a Muslim who had just interviewed Osama bin Laden and concluded that it was a race to see whether the U.S. would attack bin Laden first or he would attack the U.S. first? Shortly after this report, didn't the Northwest Airlines flight attendants' website carry a "Backgrounder" by Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz referring to Project Bojinka with hijacked airliners flying into the World Trade Center, Pentagon and other buildings? Then on September 10, 2001, didn't some top Pentagon officials suddenly cancel their travel plans for the next morning apparently because of security concerns, according to two reports by Newsweek? And on the evening of September 10, 2001, eight hours before the terrorist attacks of September 11, didn't San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown's security people at the airport there call him before his flight to New York City the morning of September 11 and advise him that he and all Americans should be cautious about their air travel (see The San Francisco Chronicle, September 12, page A17)? How could our leaders following the September 11 terrorist attacks here say that no one could have imagined such a thing would occur? I filed a Freedom of Information request regarding any warnings, alerts, or emergency rulings by the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) or other government agencies pertaining to transportation between May 2001 and September 15 of that year. The Department of Homeland Security replied they had found 12 relevant Information Circulars, but they would not let me see them.

Wasn't Marcus Mabry's Newsweek Web Exclusive of September 15, 2001, about the terrorist attacks and their aftermath titled, "Welcome to the New World Order"? And didn't Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien say on September 29, 2001, that "there will probably be a new order in the world that will probably be better than we have now"?

No, the power elite actually didn't plot the attacks of September 11. They didn’t have to. Remember that Rhodes' conspiracy ended as such around 1960 because enough like-minded globalists were in key positions in politics, economics, education and journalism, and his conspiracy was no longer necessary (being replaced by a global network of power elite pursuing world government). When a student several years ago went on a shooting rampage, the press rarely reported that he was stopped by a teacher with a gun, because the press is overwhelmingly for gun control. The power elite did not have to call editors of the nation’s newspapers and tell them what to say.

Similarly, the power elite didn't call up terrorists and tell them to fly into the Pentagon and World Trade Center. However, if I could forecast terrorist attacks, so can the power elite.

Rather, there is a dialectic at work here. You may recall that under at State Department contract, CFR member Lincoln Bloomfield in 1962 wrote: "A world effectively controlled by the United Nations is one in which 'world government' would come about through the establishment of supranational institutions, characterized by... some ability to employ physical force.... [But] if the communist dynamic was greatly abated, the West might lose whatever incentive it has for world government." Interestingly, Bloomfield also wrote that the world government could come about by means of "a grave crisis or war to bring about a sudden transformation in national attitudes sufficient for the purpose.... The order we examine may be brought into existence as a result of a series of sudden, nasty, and traumatic shocks."

Relevant to today, it is the reaction (public willingness to give up some Constitutional freedoms) to the action (terrorist attack wherever and whenever and however it occurs) that is important to the power elite. Thus, they don't have to cause the action, but only anticipate that it will occur sometime, and emphasize the public reaction to it to further their goals. And in case anyone doesn't believe the power elite wants a diminution of our Constitutional freedoms and our national sovereignty, just look at Our Global Neighborhood: The Basic Vision, a document produced several years ago by The Commission on Global Governance, whose work was supported by then U.N. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali. Members of the Commission included Maurice Strong (Secretary-General of the Rio Earth Summit, co-author of the current Earth Charter, and right-hand man of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan) and Barber Conable (former president of the World Bank). Among the Commission’s proposals are that "a new world order must be organized.... In certain fields, sovereignty has to be exercised collectively.... The principle of sovereignty must be adapted in such a way as to balance... the interests of nations with the interests of the global neighborhood.... We strongly endorse community initiatives to... encourage the disarming of civilians.... We would like to see a permanent international criminal court instituted as a matter of the highest priority.... We are... in need of a mobilizing principle... a new world order that secures the ascendancy of global neighborhood values over divisive nationalism."

Of course, the public will have to be prepared to accept world government, and what better way to do that than via education. The primary arm of the U.N. dealing with education is UNESCO, and in its first Director-General Sir Julian Huxley's UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy (1948), he wrote: "Political unification in some sort of world government will be required." On October 3, 2003, on the occasion of the U.S. rejoining UNESCO (after President Reagan had withdrawn the U.S.), U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige declared: "The United States is pleased to return to UNESCO.... Our governments have entrusted us with the responsibility of preparing our children to become citizens of the world.... UNESCO is a powerful forum for sharing our views, developing a common strategy, and implementing joint action." The problem with the concept of "world citizens" is that just as "citizens" of a state have to obey the laws of that state, "citizens of the world" will be expected to obey world laws. And the clear majority of the world's nations are socialist, so that world laws will reflect a socialist perspective.

The conditioning of the public in the past has been gradual, but as famous author H.G. Wells noted, the process will speed up in the end as the synthesis toward a World Socialist Government gains greater momentum. Hopefully, Americans will wake up before it’s too late and resist this global effort on the part of the power elite.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Cuddy/dennis2.htm 

• THE SECRETS OF BOHEMIAN GROVE — RESEARCHER, Tue Mar 16 15:02