The Rockefeller File Part 4

The use of psychology and propaganda, or if you will, brainwas.h.i.+ng, is not a Communist invention. lt was developed in the West in such places as the Rockefeller financed Tavistock Inst.i.tute in England.

While the Communists have used these tools for mindbending, so have the Rockefellers. The hidden persuaders from Madison Avenue, the Rand Corp. think-tank or Hudson Inst.i.tute, can and do manipulate public opinion. The Establishment elitists refer to it as" the engineering of consent." That means we are made to think the manacles they are slipping on our wrists are love bracelets. The techniques developed by the Rockefeller "Thought Trust " have just been adopted and used more brutally by the Communists.

With money the Rockefellers gained control of the media. With the media the family gained control over public opinion. With control over public opinion they gained control of politics. And with control of politics, they are taking control of the nation.

Chapter Seven

Surrender by Consent

As we have seen in the preceding chapter, there can be absolutely no doubt that the major Rockefeller goal today is the creation of a " New World Order" a one-world government that would control all of mankind. But, wanting a Global Superstate and getting one are two different things. How do the Rockefellers expect to round up all of us cows and herd us into their World Government corral?

The Rockefellers know that the roads to World Government can be as varied as human hopes, fears, ambitions, ignorance and greed. And since the Rockefellers' never put all of their financial or political eggs into one basket, you will not be surprised to learn that they are involved in promoting every conceivable route to a World Superstate. If there is an approach they have overlooked, we can't think of it. (And if you can, please don't mention it out loud-or the New York Times might announce tomorrow that the Council on Foreign Relations or a Rockefeller Foundation grant is supporting it.) A complete listing of all organizations, movements, publications, and programs supporting World Government, which in turn are managed behind the scenes by the Rockefeller-CFR axis, would fill a book the size of the Los Angeles area telephone directory. Obviously, we can mention only a few of the more important trails along the Rockefellers' drive toward World Government.

Certainly the most visible pathway toward World Government is the organization that was created in 1945 by the Rockefellers for precisely this purpose - the United Nations. As we shall see in the next chapter, the controlled media have deliberately created a myth that the UN is a meaningless debating society. We are supposed to believe that the Rockefellers have spent millions on an organization that is, at best, an expensive but relatively harmless irritant. This public image of the UN has been invaluable to the global master planners, and it is about as accurate as an itinerant peddler's claim for his sure-fire snake oil potion.

If the Rockefeller thought-controllers can persuade enough Americans to accept voluntarily the surrender of US sovereignty to the United Nations, their long campaign for World Government will be over. The -New World Order -will have arrived- with all the hoopla of a Wall Street ticker tape parade.

The Rockefellers would be willing to pay almost any price for such a bloodless coup d'etat , Infact, they are paying millions of dollars every year to finance just such a possibility. Here are just a few of the organizations in the United States which are financed and/or directed by the Rockefeller - CFR combine that are actively promoting the voluntary demise of American independence.

American a.s.sembly American a.s.sociation for the United Nations ''We shall have world government whether or not you like it - by conquest or consent.''

-CFR member James Warburg testifying before the Senate foreign Relations Committee on February 17, 1950American Friends Service Committee Arden House Group Atlantic Union Business Council Center for Advanced Study in Behavioral Sciences Center of Diplomacy and Foreign Policy Chatham House Citizens Committee for International Development Committees on Foreign Relations Committee for Economic Development Council on Foreign Relations Federation of World Governments Foreign Policy a.s.sociation Inst.i.tute of International Education Inst.i.tute for World Order National Planning a.s.sociation US National Commission The Trilateral Commission World Affairs Council United World Federalists If you recognize more than half of this list, congratulations!

You are already well-informed about this Rockefeller road to serfdom. But if most of these names are new to you, we respectfully suggest that you have some homework to do. And while doing it, please remember that some of the most innocent sounding groups, or some apparently ineffective body whose avowed purposes seem totally non-political, may be one of the most dangerous tentacles on the whole World Government octopus.

Such is the case with one of the oldest organizations mentioned above, Atlantic Union. It is the grandaddy of regional government schemes, composed of those who believe that getting half a loaf is half way to getting a whole loaf. Atlantic Unionists argue that regional government is a necessary way station on the road to total World Government. Until Rocky's boy Henry sprung detente on them, Atlantic Union was also the organization for one-worlders who claimed to be anti-Communists. (And, indeed, there were some legitimate anti Communists in the group.)The Atlantic Unionists believe that our War of Independence was all a ghastly mistake. This may seem a little odd as we prepare to celebrate the nation's bicentennial, but there are as many unreconstructed Tories on Wall Street as there are unreconstructed secessionists in Alabama.

The idea of Atlantic Union had its origin in the fertile brain of an Englishman named Cecil Rhodes, whose dream was to see the United States reannexed to the British Empire. To this end he established the Rhodes Foundation, providing for the education in England of bright young Americans.

In 1939, a Rhodes Scholar named Clarence Streit wrote a book called Union Now, which advocated a gradual approach to final world union by way of regional unions, starting with the union between the US and Britain. Committees were set up all over America, and Mr. Streit reported that over two million Americans had signed pet.i.tions asking for union with Britain.

In Streit's own words, Atlantic Union, now expanded to include Western Europe, was the first step towards total world government:" It [Union Now] proclaimed the need of world government and insisted that no country needed this more urgently than the United States.

Streit, who has been a close a.s.sociate of Communists and socialists all his adult life, has no hostility towards collectivism. He said in Union Now: - Democracy not only allows mankind to choose freely between capitalism and collectivism, but it includes Marxist governments."

In his pamphlets Streit asks the question:" Does the rise of socialism in some Western European democracies prevent our federating with them?" He answers with an emphatic "No !"

In March 1949, Federal Union set up a political-action unit called the Atlantic Union Committee. The first president of this Committee was former Supreme Court justice Owen J. Roberts, who said he considers national sovereignty a " silly s.h.i.+bboleth."

More than twenty years ago the Los Angeles Examiner described what Atlantic Union would mean to America: They [the nations of Western Europe] would impose their socialism in place of our republican self- government, extract taxes from us as they pleased, draft our men for their armies and our women for their factories, appropriate bulk of our productive wealth for their own enrichment.

How can any Senator or Representative elected to represent the people of the United States bring himself to advocate so clear a policy of national self-destruction?

The goals of Atlantic Union have not changed. But very few newspapers are as courageous or outspoken anymore. Bucking the Rockefellers is not the way to build your advertising revenue.

Less than a dozen years after its founding, the Atlantic Union Committee had grown to 871 wealthy and influential members, 107 of whom were members of the CFR. Today it has some 2,000 members.

An Atlantic Union Resolution which would, in effect, repeal the Declaration of independence, was first introduced in Congress in 1949. It has been reintroduced every year since, but until recently never received much attention-despite its endors.e.m.e.nt by such Rockefeller CFR stalwarts as Richard Nixon, Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Dwight Eisenhower, Adlai Stevenson, John Foster Dulles, Jacob Javits, William Fulbright, Eugene McCarthy, and Henry Kissinger.In 1975, the Atlantic Union resolution was once more introduced into the House of Representatives.

Incredibly, 111 Congressmen (38 more sponsors than the resolution ever had before), all sworn to uphold the Const.i.tution of the United States, officially co-sponsored the measure which would supersede our Const.i.tution! According to the bill's chief sponsor, Illinois Republican Paul Findley: This proposal never before had so much vigorous fresh blood as it has today. Nearly half of its sponsors are new 59 to be exact. Of these, 26 are freshmen, elected last November; 13 others voted for it when it was stalled on the floor last year by the thin majority of 210 to 197. Most significant of all, 10 of those who voted against it two years ago and still remain in the House are sponsoring it today; 56 of the 210 who opposed it in 1973 are no longer among the, members of the House.

In 1973, the Atlantic Union resolution missed pa.s.sing by a scant 13 votes. As Findley gloated, many of those who voted against it are now gone and several others who once opposed the measure have seen the Rockefeller handwriting on the wall and have become sponsors.

As you probably suspect, Atlantic Union is a Rockefeller operation.

The Oilbucks Gang has been tied to Atlantic federation for some 35 years. In fact, when Nelson Rockefeller was given the Atlantic Union's highest honor: the Pioneer Award, in 1964, Clarence Streit told the a.s.sembled dignitaries at the presentation that Nelson Rockefeller had saved the organization from a dangerous division back in 1939. lt seems that the two strongest chapters, one in New York City and the other in Was.h.i.+ngton, were at loggerheads on where the group's headquarters would be established. Both wanted it in their own city.

"Ever the politician. Streit wanted to satisfy both factions, but he didn't have the shekels to finance such an elaborate operation. lt was at that moment the Rockefeller cavalry came galloping to the rescue.

Nelson promised to provide an entire floor at 10 East 40 th Street, New York City, rent free.

Twenty-five years later, it was Rocky's open espousal of ending American independence, expressed in his book Future of Federalism. that gave many secret World Government supporters in Congress the courage to speak up. According to Streit: 'The Future of Federalism- came at a time when other US political leaders and many of our best friends in Congress were afraid even to mention such words as "federal" or " union-in connection with Atlantica, lest they arouse controversy and opposition from misguided The Rockefeller family has provided free rental for the Atlantic Union headquarters, and Streit informs us that this fact had been kept a secret for 25 years. Even this admission was made at a private dinner of Insiders. You will find no mention of this incredible fact in the newspapers the next day. (Streit's disclosure appeared in their own publication, and was later placed in the Congressional Record for all to see by a - misguided patrioteer.-) You are not supposed to know that the richest family in the country wants to abolish the independence of the United States.

For those Americans willing to go directly into the Great Merger with the Communists, without s.h.i.+lly- shallying around with regional intermediaries, the Rockefeller-CFR combine has several organizations available to support. The most blatant, as well as the most successful, is probably the United World Federalists. The United World Federalists was formed in 1947 by two CFR stalwarts, Norman Cousins and James P. Warburg (whose statement, promising world government" by consent or conquest," began this chapter). One of the most famous slogans of this Rockefeller front was" One world or none.- The UWF has been particularly effective at appealing to the idealism of youthful Americans, through chapters on many high school and college campuses, with its promise of "world peace through world law." Most of these young members apparently a.s.sume that a World Government created and controlled by Insiders would protect individual rights, guarantee freedom of the press, respect religious beliefs and practices, and so on. Naturally, the UWF says nothing to disillusion them.

The United World Federalists has been a CFR operation since it was created, more than 25 years ago, by amalgamating three small organizations, the World Federalists, Student Federalists, and Americans United for World Government. Its members.h.i.+p has been heavily interlocked with that of the CFR from the day it began. Yet so successful has been the Rockefeller-CFR public relations job on behalf of the UWF that today it can-and does-promote virtually every major plank of the Communist Party, without losing an ounce of its Establishment-created -respectability."

The first president of the United World Federalists was Cord Meyer Jr., who, of course, was also a member of the CFR.

In a very curious book called Peace or Anarchy, Meyer touted the usual Insider line that the United States should be thrilled to disarm itself and merge into a -Federated World Government" under the control of the United Nations. And here is the kind of "peace- the UWF president wanted to see established: ... once having joined the One-World Federated Government no nation could secede or revolt ... because with the Atom Bomb in its possession the Federal Government [of the World] would blow that nation off the face of the earth.

Significantly, when he stepped down as UWF president, Meyer slid into a top position with another Rockefeller organization, the Central Intelligence Agency. His activities since then have been cloaked in a veil of secrecy, but one can only a.s.sume that his vision of an all powerful World Government, happily blowing recalcitrant nations" off the face of the earth," has not changed.

In recent decades, UWF* supporters have become much more subtle in their advocacy of a World Superstate. The game is still the same, but the names have been changed to protect the guilty. They are now selected by Rockefeller's PR boys on Madison Avenue to be much more palatable to the public.

You will not, for example, find a UWF member today stating the group's goals quite as crudely as a UWF professor named Milton Mayer did in 1949, when he said: " We must haul down the American flag ... haul it down, stamp on it, spit on it." The Rockefellers, you understand, never spit; they expectorate.

Although less than one American in a thousand would consider for a moment the suggestion that his political leaders have actually advocated abandoning our independence, the truth is that the UWF has been endorsed by such big-name politicos as Harry Truman, Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey, Richard Nixon, Jacob Javits, Dwight Eisenhower, Frank Church, justice William 0. Douglas, and Ronald Reagan.

For decades Atlantic Union and United World Federalists and scores of less-effective Rockefeller fronts have followed a course of patient gradualism. They do not expect Americans to accept World Government overnight like water dripping on a rock, they plan to wear down all opposition in time.

* To make their commitment to globalism, not nationalism, even clearer, the UWF changed its name in 1969 to World Federalists, USA But there are increasing indications that the leaders of he conspiratorial internationalists are running out of patience. Sure, they will permit the UWF and a.s.sorted cherries to continue on their merry way, urging us to put he gun to our collective heads and pull the trigger-all the while promising us we'll be better off for the experience, of course. But as we shall see in the next chapter, some of he top bra.s.s have contingency plans well prepared to move considerably faster should it become necessary.

One development that may signal more severe storms on the horizon was the formation, more than two years ago, of a new ent.i.ty called" The Trilateral Commission." The founding meeting was called by David Rockefeller, the number one man in the Council on Foreign Relations and Chairman of the Board of Chase Manhattan Bank. When David asks some 200 leading bankers, businessmen, politicians, and labor leaders throughout the world to join him in forming a multi-national planning commission, you can be certain that the invitation has all of the force of a royal command.

Long-time Rockefeller watchers know that major s.h.i.+fts in the internationalists' plans are frequently signaled by brief articles in the New York Times. So when that Insiders' house organ mentioned in a small dispatch on June 18, 1974,that" the lives and fortunes of large numbers of human beings hang upon the outcome of decisions taken by a small handful of national leaders- on the Trilateral Commission, it was time to pay more attention -a lot more attention- to the group. If your life hangs upon (a rather strong choice of words for so august a publication as the Times) the deliberations and decisions of this commission, it is time to find out what they are deciding.

The tipoff came with the appointment of Zbigniew Brzezinski as a director of the commission. Shortly after the formation of the Trilateral Commission, the new director (who is an officer of the CFR) wrote an article for the CFR's official journal, Foreign Affairs, in which he said: The world is not likely to unite [willingly] behind a common ideology or a super-government. The only practical hope is that it will now respond to a common concern for its own survival.

.... The Atlantic [Union] concept was a creative response to the problems of the cold war era. Today, the Atlantic framework is too narrow to encompa.s.s the mult.i.tude of challenges-and opportunities -that confront the international community. lt is a recognition of this reality to propose ... that the active promotion of such trilateral cooperation must now become the central priority of U.S. policy.

In other words, Brzezinski says it's time to forget about the rather open and above-board approach to world government proposed by Atlantic Union. Voluntary union will not be achieved in time; it's time to try another approach. What is that " other approach " ? Simply stated, it is to impose the very same controls over nations that World Government advocates propose, but this time to do it under the guise of solving economic, ecological, or energy problems.

The chairman of The Trilateral Commission is Gerard C. Smith, another CFR member and former director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.* Here is how he describes the purpose of The Trilateral Commission: The United States, Western Europe, and j.a.pan face a common condition. They are the major industrial areas of the world, and they share common concerns about the problems of environment and modern industrial society.

They jointly share a global responsibility and we think their relations are threatened by domestic concerns which tend to drive the regions apart. (Emphasis added.) *The significance of Smith leaving the Arms Control and Disarmament. Agency to run this new Rockefeller operation should not be overlooked. The Disarmament Agency is a key part of the Insiders'

program for a World Superstate. (See Chapter Eight.) For Smith to step down from such a major post means the Trilateral Commission must really be important.

According to Smith, the problems each country is facing may pose a serious obstacle to the establishment of a " New World Order." There is a danger that some nations may become so concerned about solving their own problems (such as having enough fuel to keep their factories going and enough food to feed their citizens), that they will lose sight of the larger objective-building World Government.

The first meeting of David Rockefeller's new group was held in Tokyo on October 21-23, 1973. Sixty- five persons were listed as North American members. Of those, thirty five are also members of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Six position papers, called " The Triangle Papers," have been issued so far by the Commission: two from the Tokyo meeting in October 1973, three from a meeting in Brussels in June 1974,and one from a Was.h.i.+ngton, D.C. meeting in December 1974. If the -Triangle Papers- are any indication, we can look for four major thrusts toward world economic controls: The first, toward a - renovated world monetary system"; the second, involving the looting of our resources for the further radicalization of -have-not- nations; the third, toward stepped-up trade with the Communists; and the fourth, toward milking the energy crisis for greater international controls.

So if you've been wondering what the next move of the World Government Insiders will be along the road to surrender by consent-they've already made it. The Trilateral Commission has been created by David Rockefeller to guide his fellow internationalists in using their private influence to make certain their governments remain on the proper public course-a headlong rush toward the Great Merger. And the country that ignores its warnings, and pays too much attention to its -domestic- concerns, may find itself in a food/fuel/financial crisis that will make the Great Depression seem like an idyllic trek through the Promised Land.

Chapter Eight.

Surrender by Conquest.

''In Stage III [of disarmament] progressive controlled disarmament ... would proceed to a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened UN Peace Force and all international disputes would be settled according to On his return from Vladivostok , USSR, where he had signed an agreement drafted at the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT), President Ford announced in a typically mixed metaphor that he had" put a cap- on the arms race. In the light of previous deals with the Communists, such a p.r.o.nouncement was incredible. It conjured up memories of Chamberlain, newly arrived from Munich, standing on the sacred ground in which his head was buried and announcing through the sand that the treaty in his hand was proof we would have" peace in our time.- While the Liberal press was singing hosannas to SALT II as the pinnacle of detente agreed principles of international conduct .... The Peace-keeping capabilities of the United Nations would be sufficiently strong and the obligations of all states under such arrangements sufficiently far reaching as to a.s.sure peace and the just settlement of differences in a disarmed world.''

-Department of State Publication 7277(French for both a trigger and a lessening of tensions), the Communists were gobbling up territory faster than the Oklahoma Sooners. Using Soviet arms, the Reds were sweeping through Cambodia and South Vietnam. With the planned opening of Suez, they were preparing to link their naval forces in the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean. And. Portugal, a long-time American ally, was being converted into a Soviet outpost in Western Europe. If this is detente, bring back the Cold War.

The road toward SALT began at the dawn of the nuclear age, when Leftist scientists and academics, standing at the wailing wall of disarmament, began to bemoan their fear that America's superior nuclear capacity would somehow frighten a worried Soviet Union into launching a major war. The "solution " to this peril begins with the Pugwash Conferences and might conclude with the forced surrender of a disarmed US In 1955,the Parliamentary a.s.sociation for World Government issued a call for a series of "Conferences on Science and World Affairs" between Russian and American scientists and intellectuals. The first of these was held in 1957 at the home of Russophile Cyrus Eaton in Pugwash, Nova Scotia. Eaton, who began his career a secretary to John D. Rockefeller and is now a business partner of the Rockefellers in promoting Red trade, earned the Lenin Peace Prize for fronting the deal and financing the first five Conferences. Since then, more than twenty have been held, most of them outside the United States All have been financed by the tax-exempt Rockefeller CFR foundations.

"On September 23, 1960,three years after the first Pugwash Conference, the Soviets presented a plan for total and complete disarmament - to the United Nations. It called for a systematic reduction in arms by major powers of the world. The so-called "Soviet plan" immediately became the beneficiary of extremely influential American support, when a group of powerful proponents of disarmament within the CFR endorsed it.

This was no mere happenstance. A secret CFR disarmament program, ent.i.tled "Study No.7," was made public a few months later. Prepared by the CFR for the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, " Study No.7" argued that the United States " must: (1) search for an international order ... in which many policies are jointly undertaken by ... states with differing political, economic and social systems, and including states labeling themselves as 'socialist."' [That is, Communist.] In order to build such a "new international order,' " the CFR said, we must -maintain and gradually increase the authority of the UN,"

and "conduct serious negotiations to achieve international agreement on limitation, reduction and control of armaments.- And here is the amazing part: This CFR position paper had preceded the Soviet proposal of September 23, 1960, by nearly a year. Pugwashed or not, the two schemes were almost identical!

This Pugwash-CFR conspiracy is one of the most brilliant achievements in psychological warfare since the Trojan Horse. While Americans were being told of the horrors of nuclear war and the supposed advantages of limiting our defenses, the Russians were arming to the teeth.

lt was in June of 1964 that the Ford Foundation, already famous for bankrolling Rockefeller- approved fascist socialist causes, put up $325,000 for a Pugwash production called the "Joint US - USSR Study Group in Disarmament."

The climate which Rockefeller partner Cyrus Eaton's Pugwash group and the CFR had created was by now well established. Advocates of the New World Order began to crow that World Government was at last in sight. In September of 1961, the Department of State released Publication 7277, ent.i.tled : Freedom From War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World.

It was a three-stage program which provided: In Stage III progressive controlled disarmament and continuously developing principles and procedures of international law would proceed to a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened UN Peace Force and all international disputes would be settled according to agreed * Strategy for the Sixties, Jay Cerf and Walter Pozen, New York Praeger, Inc., 1961.p92 THE ROCKEFELLER FILE.

principles of international conduct. . . . The peacekeeping capabilities of the United Nations would be sufficiently strong and the obligations of all states under such arrangements sufficiently far reaching as to a.s.sure peace and the just settlement of differences in a disarmed world.

The same month that State Department Publication 7277 was issued, the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency was created by Congress. Within forty-eight hours the new Agency presented its disarmament scheme to the United Nations. Naturally, it was a carbon copy of the CFR-Soviet- Pugwash proposal presented to the UN by the Communists the year before While the newspapers and TV have prattled endlessly about disarmament, nary a word has been said about the other side of the coin: all such proposals call for arming the United Nations! This apparently is the best-kept secret since the formula for Coca-Cola.

In October of 1968 the US Disarmament Agency issued a revised proposal, ent.i.tled : Arms Control and National Security, which declared: Since 1959, the agreed ultimate goal of the negotiations has been general and complete disarmament, i.e., the total elimination of all armed forces and armaments except those needed to maintain internal order within states and to furnish the United Nations with peace forces. . . . While the reductions were taking place, a UN peace force would be established and developed, and, by the time the plan was completed, it would be so strong that no nation could challenge it.

Notice that the doc.u.ment said," Since1959" The US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency was no established until September 1961. But it was in 1959 that the CFR " Study No.7 " was prepared and its content were transmitted to the Soviets.

How successful have these New World Order disarmers been in implementing their plans? What has happened to our military strength since disarmament was accepted as official US Government policy?

The first Secretary of Defense to implement this policy was CFR member Robert 5. McNamara, Secretary of Defense from 1961 through 1968. In The Betrayers, Phyllis Schlafly and Chester Ward discuss McNamara's wrecking job. Where Robert McNamara left office, they note, he had: ... reduced our nuclear striking force by 50% while the Soviets had increased theirs by 300%.

... caused the US to lose its lead in nuclear delivery vehicles.

... sc.r.a.pped 3/4 of our multi megaton missiles.... cut back the originally planned 2,000 Minutemen to 1,000.

... destroyed all our intermediate and medium-range missiles.

... canceled our 24-megaton bomb.

... sc.r.a.pped 1,455 of 2,710 bombers left over from the Eisenhower Administration.

... disarmed 600 of the remaining bombers of their strategic nuclear weapons.

... frozen the number of Polaris subs at 41, refusing to build any more missile-firing submarines.

... refused to allow development of any new weapons systems except the TFX (F-111).

... canceled Skybolt, Pluto, Dynasoar and Orian [missile systems].

In fact, McNamara destroyed more operational US strategic weapons that the Soviets could have destroyed in a full-scale nuclear attack!

Supporting McNamara's efforts at unilateral disarmament were CFR members John J. McCloy and Willian C. Foster. McCloy, who preceded David Rockefeller a chairman of the board of both the CFR and the family' piggy bank, Chase Manhattan, was picked by President John F. Kennedy to be chairman of the General Advisor, Committee for the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, a post which he still holds. William C. Foster was appointed director of the Agency. In 1969, Foster was replaced as director by Gerard C. Smith, another CFR member. Smith's successor in 1973 was Fred Ikle who (this will probably not surprise you) is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

John J. McCloy's current General Advisory Committee is composed of 1. W. Abel, Dr. Harold Brown (CFR), William C. Foster (CFR), Kermit Cordon (CFR), Dr. James R. Killian, General Lauris Norstad (CFR), Dr. Jack Ruina (CFR), Dean Rusk (CFR), William Scranton, Dr. John Archibald Wheeler, and, Judith A. Cole, staff director.

What is going on here, alas, is all too simple. The Rockefeller - Establishment Insiders of the Council on Foreign Relations are working to weaken America's defensive capacity so the Soviets can "catch up."

This policy, they believe, will lead eventually to a merger of political and economic interests- what the CFR calls a New World Order.

This is not academic skylarking. It is, as we have seen, official US policy. The operative phases of this scheme began in earnest when CFR Insiders persuaded President Lyndon Johnson to propose the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) in 1966. The SALT talks to negotiate a first disarmament treaty were scheduled for July 1968. They were postponed until November 1969 because the Soviets were busy with their invasion of Czechoslovakia-only two weeks after Soviet officials signed the Declaration of Bratislava, guaranteeing Czech independence!

We have made such great progress at SALT that when the first meetings were scheduled in 1968, the Soviets had only 850 long-range missiles while the US had 1,054. But following the seventh SALT meeting, when President Nixon signed accords in Moscow on May 26, 1972, the Soviets had 1,618 ICBMs either deployed or under construction while we, in turn, still had 1,054 - the same number as in 1968. This, in short, is the way we have negotiated. We have frozen production and exported US technology to permit the Kremlin first to catch up, and then to surpa.s.s us.What trends must we stop to prevent an ultimatum from the Soviets? To begin with, there is the effort to limit defense spending- especially in the area of strategic weapons development.

In the 1974 Economic Report of the President we learn that in 1953 our total government spending as a %age of national income was 33.2 %. That included 16 % for domestic spending, including welfare, etc.

Twenty years later, in 1973, government spending had risen to 38.6 % of the national income. During this time the - better Red than deadboys hid cut defense back to 7 % of the national income while increasing domestic spending to 31.6 %. You might tap dance through those statistical tulips again.

They confirm that the CFR plan is fully operative-that we are being prepared for the New World Order by being collectivized and disarmed at the same time.

Nor do those figures tell the whole story. With the advent of our -professional- Armed Forces, fifty-six % of the defense budget is now going for salaries. Congressman Larry McDonald (D.-Ca.) of the House Armed Services Committee observes: The Liberals in Congress are constantly calling for the slas.h.i.+ng of the -bloated- Defense budget so they can further increase Welfare spending. Since we cannot cut salaries, about the only thing which can be cut is hardware. Tr.i.m.m.i.n.g the so-called fat actually turns out to be slicing out bone and muscle. If we had a war, we would have lots of men in uniform, but they wouldn't have adequate equipment with which to fight.