The Unseen Hand - Ralph Epperson

Non-Violent Organizations

Karl Marx, the mis-named "Father of Communism," formulated two methods of achieving the Communist state he wrote about:

  • The Violent Method, and
  • The Non-Violent Method.

The Violent Method was tried in the French Revolution of 1789, the Communist Revolutions in Europe in 1848, and in the Russian Revolutions of 1905 and 1917.

The Non-Violent Method has succeeded in socializing the English nation, and is the method being utilized in socializing the United States.

Both of these methods frequendy work together to achieve the goal of both: a Communist state. And on other occasions, they are placed in opposition to each other. But the end result is always the same: an increase in the number of Communist nations in the world.

Perhaps the Non-Violent Method could be better understood if the various organizations promoting the Marxist ploy were to be exposed to the observer.

The secret ingredient for the success of this method is the ability to induce non-Communists into supporting Communist objectives and goals, by having them join organizations set up by the Communists under innocuous sounding names. Frequently those who join do not truly understand the nature and purpose of the organizations they associate with.

This strategy was laid down in 1938 by Georgi Dimitrov, a leader of the Comintern, in Russia, who said:

"Let our friends do the work. We must always remember that one sympathizer is generally worth more than a dozen militant communists. Our friends must confuse the adversary for us, carry out our main directives, mobilize in favor of our campaigns people who do not think as we do, and whom we could never reach."


Cecil Rhodes, who amassed a fortune in the gold and diamond mines in South Africa in the late 1800's with the financial support of the Rothschilds, had a vision (other than making large sums of money) which motivated him during his lifetime. His purpose " . . . centered on his desire to federate the English-speaking peoples and to bring all the habitable portions of the world under their control."

Mr. Rhodes' biographer explained who Rhodes thought might be the leader of this world government rather succinctly: "The government of the world was Rhodes' simple desire."

After the death of Mr. Rhodes, his will set up a scholarship program where certain very intelligent young men would be allowed to study in England. Between two and three thousand men in the prime of life from all over the world would be the recipients of his scholarships so that each one would have "impressed upon his mind in the most susceptible period of his life the dream of the Founder. . ."

The "dream of the Founder" was, of course, a one world government Some well known American Rhodes Scholars in public life are: Dean Rusk, former Secretary of State; Walt Whitman Rostow, government official; J. William Fulbright, former Senator; Nicholas Katzenbach, former Attorney General; Frank Church, former Senator; Howard K. Smith, newscaster; Supreme Court Justice Byron White; and Senator Bill Bradley. Those who have studied the voting records and public proclamations of these individuals agree that not one is a so-called "conservative."


The Fabian Society is an English organization founded in 1884. It is named after a third-century Roman General, Quintus Fabius Maximus who successfully defeated Hannibal.

The Fabians discovered the secret of the general's strategy: never confront the enemy directly in the open battlefield, but defeat him gradually through a series of small battles, running after each successful foray. Fabius was a successful guerrilla fighter using the simple strategy of patient gradualism. He knew that he couldn't defeat the mighty armies of Hannibal with an open confrontation because his armies were outnumbered. He never confronted his enemy directly.

This is the strategy adopted by the Fabian Society. They decided that the forces of the free-enterprise system have a superior philosophy and that their strategy must never be to confront the free-enterprise system head on. They must be content with a series of small victories, the lump sum of which will be a rather stunning victory and the ultimate triumph of Socialism.

Their original symbol was a tortoise, symbolizing the slow, gradual progress of that animal, but this symbol was later changed to that of a wolf in sheep's clothing . . . which George Bernard Shaw (a member of the Fabian Society) long ago suggested was more appropriate than the tortoise as a heraldic device for the Fabian Society."

The philosophy of the Society was simply written in 1887 and each member is obliged to support it It reads:

"It (The Fabian Society) therefore aims at the reorganization of society by the emancipation of land and Industrial Capital from individual and class ownership . . . The Society accordingly works for the extinction of private property in land . . . "

The Fabian Society acknowledges the principal tenet of Marxism: the abolition of private property, in this case the right to own land. They then align themselves with the non-violent arm of the Marxist Conspiracy by accepting the non-violent road of patient gradualism to total government.

The entire strategy was detailed by H.G. Wells, the noted science fiction writer, also a member of the Fabian Society, who wrote:

"It (will be) left chiefly to the little group of English people who founded Fabian Socialism to supply a third system of ideas to the amplifying conception of Socialism, to convert revolutionary Socialism to Administrative Socialism.

"Socialism (will cease) to be an open revolution and will become a plot

George Orwell, also a member of the Fabian Society, in his novel entitled 1984, had his character O'Brien say:

"We know that no one seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes a revolution in order to establish a dictatorship."

All of these efforts of all of these Fabian Socialists were brought to a head when, in 1905, the Fabian Society hosted a branch of the Violent Method of Marxist ascendancy to power, the Bolshevik Communists. The main purpose of this meeting in London was for members of the Fabian Society to loan money to the Bolsheviks for the 1905 revolution in Russia. John Maynard Keynes, also a member of the Fabian Society, was present at these meetings and later confided to his mother in a letter after meeting the Bolsheviks, that "The only course open to me is to be buoyantly Bolshevik."

Keynes was later to boast that he shared the Bolsheviks' desire to destroy the free-enterprise system by stating that his economic ideas were going to be "the euthanasia (a merciful killing) of capitalism."

Benito Mussolini, the Italian Fascist, read some of the works of Keynes and personally set his approval on one of the books he read. He said:

"Fascism entirely agrees with Mr. Maynard Keynes, despite the latter's prominent position as a Liberal. In fact, Mr. Keynes' excellent little book. The End of Laissez-Faire (1926) might, so far as it goes, serve as a useful introduction to fascist economics. There is scarcely anything to object to in it and there is much to applaud."

Keynes' ideas have made him "by wide agreement the most influential economist of this century," according to John Kenneth Galbraith, another economist.

But there are other economists who are familiar with the ideas of Keynes who do not agree. One is Dr. Friederich A. Hayek who advised the world that:

"The responsibility for current world-wide inflation, I am sorry to say, rests wholly and squarely with the economists who have embraced the teachings of Lord Keynes. It was on the advice and even urging of his pupils that governments everywhere have financed increasing parts of their expenditure by creating money on a scale which every reputable economist before Keynes would have predicted would cause precisely the sort of inflation we have got."

Unfortunately for the world, they do not listen to Dr. Hayek, even though he was a co-recipient of the 1974 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science, and the world gets inflation whenever they listen to the economists who have listened to Keynes.


Sidney Webb, a founder of the Fabian Society, created an economic school intended to teach the ideas of the Socialists to the sons of the very wealthy. It was called The London School of Economics.

Its early funding came from the very wealthy: from the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie United Kingdom Trust Fund, and from Mrs. Ernest Elmhirst, the widow of J.P. Morgan partner Williard Straight, amongst others.

Some of the illustrious students who attended the School were: Joseph Kennedy Jr., the son his father Joseph Kennedy Sr. wanted to become the first Catholic President of the United States; John Kennedy, who later became President; David Rockefeller; Robert Kennedy, Jr., the son of Robert Kennedy; Senator Daniel Moynihan; Jomo Kenyatta, who was later to form the African terrorist group known as the Mau-Maus who would butcher thousands of their fellow Africans; and Eric Sevareied, CBS broadcaster.


Thomas Jefferson attempted to warn the American people about internal conspiracies when he stated: "Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematical plan of reducing us to slavery."

Jefferson attempted to answer the question of those who wonder why nothing changes when they vote in a change in the American government by voting for the opposition party. He says, in essence, that if nothing changes, it is fair to presume that there is a conspiracy.

There are many who believe that the major reason nothing changes during changes in administrations is the Council on Foreign Relations, (the CFR) formed on July 29, 1921, in New York City.

Although the organization today has about 2,000 members representing the most elite in government, labor, business, finance, communications and the academy, it is not well known to the American people.

The major reason it is basically unknown is because of Article II of the CFR by-laws. This article requires that the meetings of the membership remain secret, and anyone releasing the contents of these meetings is subject to instant dismissal.

The CFR was founded by a group of "intellectuals" who felt that there was a need for world government and that the people of America were not ready for it. After the League of Nations treaty failed to pass the Senate, the founders of the CFR organized this association for the specific purpose of conditioning the people to accept a world government as being a desirable solution to the problems of the world.

The founders included many of those who had been at the signing of the Treaty of Versailles after the end of World War I and included: Colonel Edward Mandell House, the author of the book Philip Dru, Administrator ; Walter Lippmann, later to become one of the Liberal Establishment's favorite syndicated columnist; John Foster Dulles, later to become President Eisenhower's Secretary of State; Allen Dulles, later to become the director of the Central Intelligence Agency; and Christian Herter, later to become Dulles' successor as Secretary of State.

Money for the founding of the CFR came from J.P. Morgan; John D. Rockefeller; Bernard Baruch; Paul Warburg; Otto Kahn; and Jacob Schiff, amongst others.

The CFR has repeatedly told the American people what their goals are through their publications, one of which is a magazine called Foreign Affairs. In addition, they frequently print position papers, one of which was called Study No. 7, published on November 25, 1959. This document detailed the exact purpose of the CFR as advocating the "building (of) a new international order (which) may be responsible to world aspirations for peace (and) for social and economic change An international order . . . including states labelling themselves as Socialist (Communist)."

The words "a new international order" are the catch words for a world government.

A former member of the CFR, Rear Admiral Chester Ward (USN, ret.), told the American people the following about the intentions of the organization. He wrote:

"The most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one objective in common—they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the United States.

"A second clique of international members in the CFR . . . comprises the Wall Street international bankers and their key agents.

"Primarily, they want the world banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in the control of global government

"They would probably prefer that this be an all-powerful United Nations organization; but they are also prepared to deal with and for a one-world government controlled by the Soviet Communists if U.S. sovereignty is ever surrendered to them."

The Reece Committee of Congress, while studying foundations, chided the CFR for not being "objective." It said the CFR's "productions are not objective but are directed overwhelmingly at promoting the globalism concept."

Dan Smoot, one of the earliest researchers into the CFR, summarized the CFR's purpose as follows:

"The ultimate aim of the Council on Foreign Relations . . . is . . . to create a one-world socialist system and make the United States an official part of it."

Rear Admiral Ward told the American people that their overall influence is used for the purpose of "promoting disarmament and submergence of U.S. sovereignty and national independence into an all-powerful one-world government."

It is now clear that many of the founders of the CFR, for instance, Walter Lippmann, Allen Dulles, and Christian Herter, also wrote the League of Nations charter, which, it was hoped, would become the world government that the war was fought for (see a later chapter for the discussion of the connection between World War I and the one-world government.)

In fact, Point Fourteen of President Woodrow Wilson's famous "Fourteen Point" speech, given on January 8, 1918, stated that: "a general association of nations must be formed . . .

The CFR was well represented at the founding of the second prospective world government, the United Nations, in 1945, after the League failed to establish a one-world government. In fact, forty-seven members of the CFR were members of the United States delegation, including Edward Stettinius, the Secretary of State; John Foster Dulles; Nelson Rockefeller; Adlai Stevenson; and the first Chairman of the UN, Alger Hiss.

The CFR has made its presence known in Washington D.C., as well: "Its roster of members has, for a generation under Republican and Democratic administrations alike, been the chief recruiting ground for cabinetlevel officials in Washington."

A typical comment about how the CFR is utilized came from John McCloy, a member of the CFR, who became Secretary of War Henry Stimson's Assistant Secretary in charge of personnel. McCloy has recalled:

"Whenever we needed a man we thumbed through the roll of the Council members and put through a call to New York (the headquarters of the CFR.)"

Mr. McCloy's recollections about how the CFR has filled important governmental positions is indeed correct. Of the eighteen Secretaries of the Treasury since 1921, twelve have been members of the CFR.

Another twelve of the sixteen Secretaries of State have been members. The Department of Defense, created in 1947, has had fifteen Secretaries, including nine CFR members. And the Central Intelligence Agency, also created in 1947, has had eleven directors, seven of whom belonged to the CFR.

Six of the seven Superintendents of West Point, every Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, and every U.S. Ambassador to N.A.T.O. have been members of the CFR.

Other positions in the executive branch of government have not gone without notice by the CFR as well. There are four key positions in every administration, both Democratic and Republican, that have almost always been filled by members of the CFR. They are: National Security Advisor, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and Secretary of the Treasury.

As a recent confirmation of this fact, President Ronald Reagan appointed three members of the CFR to these four positions: Alexander Haig, Secretary of State; Casper Weinberger, Secretary of Defense; and Donald Regan, Secretary of the Treasury.

The fourth position, that of National Security Advisor, was given to Richard Allen, not a member of the CFR. Mr. Allen was fired by President Reagan shortly after his appointment.

Even the Legislative Branch of the government has its share of CFR members. In fact, in 1978 there were fifteen Senators who were members, and, in the crucial voting to give the Panama Canal away to the nation of Panama, fourteen voted in favor of the bill. It would be fair to presume that the CFR was in favor of giving the Canal to the Panamanian government But the major impact of the CFR has come in the election of the President and Vice President of the United States. The CFR has been very active in both parties, exactly as Dr. Carroll Quigley indicated in his book. Tragedy and Hope. Dr. Quigley wrote

". . . the business interests, some of them intended to contribute to both and allow an alternation of the two parties in public office in order to conceal their own influence, inhibit any exhibition of independence by politicians and allow the electorate to believe that they were exercising their own free choice."

The CFR controlled some of the past elections by giving the voting public the following members of the CFR to choose from:

Year Democratic Republican
1952 Adlai Stevenson Dwight Eisenhower
1956 Adlai Stevenson Dwight Eisenhower
1960 John Kennedy Richard Nixon
1964 none none
1968 Hubert Humphrey Richard Nixon
1972 George McGovern Richard Nixon
1976 Jimmy Carter Gerald Ford
1980 Jimmy Carter Ronald Reagan
1984 Walter Mondale Ronald Reagan


  • George McGovern later joined the CFR but was not a member when he ran;
  • Jimmy Carter was not a member of the CFR when he ran, but did become a member in 1983. He was a member of the Trilateral Commission, the CFR's sister organization.
  • Gerald Ford was not a member of the CFR, but has attended meetings of the Bilderberg organization, closely related to the CFR.
  • Ronald Reagan is not a member of the CFR, but George Bush, his Vice President, was a member of the Trilateral Commission and the CFR.
  • Walter Mondale is a former member of the Trilateral Commission and a current CFR member.

(Note: little pamphlet published by the Advertising Council entitled The American Economic System, defined Communism as: ' . . a socialist economy ruled by a single political party.' There are those who believe that America is ruled by a single political party: the Council on Foreign Relations.)

Pogo, the cartoon character, once mused: "How's I s'posed to know what to say less'n you tells me how to think."

It is one of the purposes of the major media today to tell the American people how to think and what to say, exactly as noted by Pogo. The CFR has played a major role in this indoctrination by having owners, writers, columnists and broadcasters join the CFR.

This control over America's media started in 1915, according to a Congressman in office at the time, Oscar Callaway, who placed these comments in the Congressional Record:

"In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests. . . got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press of the United States.

"These 12 men worked the problem out by selecting 179 newspapers, and then began by an elimination process to retain only those necessary for the purpose of controlling. They found it was necessary to purchase control of 25 of the greatest papers.

"An editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers."

Morgan's early control of the newspapers has been continued through the fact that most of all of the various forms of the media are either owned by members of the CFR, or employ members. For instance, the following major news media had the following number of CFR members, on their payroll in key positions as of October, 1980:

Television Networks:
CBS: 12
NBC: 8
RCA Corp.: 7
BC: 5
Wire Services:
Associated Press: 5
United Press: 1
New York Times: 8
The Washington Post: 3
Dow Jones & Co.
(includes the Wall Street Journal) :
Times Mirror
(includes the Los Angeles Times) :
Field Enterprises
(includes the Chicago Sun-Times):
New York Daily News: 1
Time, Inc.
(includes Fortune, Life, Money,
People, Sports Illustrated
, and Time):
Newsweek: 3
Reader's Digest: 2
Atlantic Monthly: 1
Harper's Magazine: 1
National Review: 1
Marquis Childs
Joseph Kraft
Bill Moyers

(Note: Is it possible that Life magazine, in their articles on Revolution already cited, intentionally fabricated their conclusions that there were no conspiracies at work? Is there really a conspiracy that Life magazine is aware of but is attempting to conceal from the public? These questions will have to be answered by the reader.)

Many of America's magazine editors and newspaper publishers and editors have attended the two most prestigious journalism schools in the United States, Columbia and Harvard. Presidents of these institutions have been members of the CFR. Their function is to make certain that the students attending classes learn what the CFR wants them to learn, so that they can in turn teach the American public through their particular form of media what the CFR wants.

One who has testified that one of the CFR-controlled media has indeed slanted its news intentionally was Herman Dinsmore, editor of the foreign edition of the New York Times from 1951 to 1960. Mr. Dinsmore has charged that the: "New York Times . . . is deliberately pitched to the so-called liberal point of view." And: "Positively and negatively, the weight of the Times has generally been on the side of the Communists since the end of World War II."

The New York Times has a motto that is used as its philosophy for determining what it will print: "All the news that's fit to print."

Mr. Dinsmore titled his book: All the News that Fits.

The fact that Mr. Dinsmore discovered that the New York Times has been supporting the Communist point of view was no new revelation, as there were other voices saying nearly the same thing. In his book, Witness, Whittaker Chambers, an ex-member of the Communist Party of the United States, wrote that: "There is probably no important magazine or newspaper in the country that is not Communist-penetrated to some degree."

The important thing to realize is that most of the important magazines and newspapers in the United States are owned by or controlled by CFR members. The question as to why the CFR controlled media allows the Communist Party to infiltrate its newspapers and magazines is generally not answered by those in the media.

Another major way that the people of America, especially the young people, are indoctrinated towards a particular point of view is through the music of the nation.

Someone once wrote: "I know a very wise man who believes that, if a man were permitted to make all the ballads, he need not care who should make the laws of a nation."

Ann Landers, nationally syndicated adviser, apparently was reluctant to admit that the music the young people were listening to was dangerous to their minds, but in October, 1979, she concluded: "I've been hearing about the filthy rock and roll lyrics for a long time and decided to tune in and listen. Twenty-three years of this column have made me virtually shock-proof, but some of the lyrics were incredibly crude." The filth of the lyrics was not unintentional. The young people were being used by the recording industry for some very important reasons. One who attempted to make some sense of the reasons for the crudity of the music was the author Gary Allen, who wrote:

"Youth believes it is rebelling against the Establishment. Yet the Establishment owns and operates the radio and TV stations, the mass magazines, and the record companies that have made rock music and its performing artists into a powerful force in American life.

"Does it not seem strange that the same Establishment which has used the mass media to ridicule and denigrate the anti-communist movement should open its door to those who think they are the Establishment's enemy?"

The connection between the music and the purpose of the music was discussed by Dr. Timothy Leary, the self-proclaimed king of the drug LSD:

"The person who says . . . rock 'n roll music encourages kids to take drugs is absolutely right. It's part of our plot . . . . Drugs are the most efficient way to revolution . . ."

A musician, Frank Zappa, the leader of the rock group called Mothers of Invention, added this incredible statement:

"The loud sounds and bright lights of today are tremendous indoctrination tools. Is it possible to modify the human chemical structure with the right combination of frequencies? If the right kind of beat makes you tap your foot, what kind of beat makes you curl your fist and strike?"

The thought that music was created for the express purpose of controlling young people is an alien idea to the parents of those who listen to the music, so the message in the music had to be concealed in a special language so that only the young people would understand it. It takes very gifted musicians and song writers to write the music in such a way that the parents interpret it one way and the young people in another, but this has been the case in the modem music of today.

This concealed message was accomplished by many groups, but one of the most successful was a rock 'n roll group known as the Beatles. Their particular message was intended to teach young people the merits of drug use through such songs as:

  • Yellow Submarine—A "submarine" is a "downer" drug, one that slows the user down.
  • Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds—The first initials of the main words in the title, "L," "S" and "D" represent the drug LSD.
  • Hey Jude—The term is widely interpreted as being a song about the drug known as methadrine.
  • Strawberry Fields—Opium poppies are often planted in strawberry fields to avoid detection.
  • Norwegian Wood—A Britisher's term for marijuana.

A more recent phenomenon in the music industry is the preparation of the young people for a Satanic experience through a group of musicians named KISS. The name conceals their true purpose: Knights in Service to Satan (KISS)

There are even groups who are using their recordings to subliminally place thoughts in the minds of the listener through the use of certain phrases placed backwards on the record. The Tucson Citizen of April 30, 1982, carried an article that asked and then answered the question:

Records Tuning Subconscious in to Satan?

"Members of the (California) state Assembly's Consumer Protection . . . Committee listened intently to a Led Zeppelin rock music tape—played backward.

"Perceptible in the cacaphony of the backward tape of (the song) "Stairway to Heaven" were mumbled words such as "Here's to my sweet Satan," and "I live for Satan."

"William Yarroll of Aurora, Colorado, who said he studies the brain, told members the subconscious mind can decipher the messages even when the record is played forward.

"Yarroll contended that the messages, placed there by rock stars in league with the Church of Satan, are accepted by the brain as fact."

The connection between the rock 'n roll music and Marxism was illustrated by a song entitled "Imagine" written by John Lennon, a member of the Beatles. A careful reading of the lyrics to the song reveals that Lennon was aware of the teachings of Karl Marx:

The attack on religion

Imagine there's no heaven

It's easy if you try

No hell below us

Above us only sky

The 'do your own thing' today philosophy

Imagine all the people

Living for today

The attack on nationalism

Imagine there's no countries

The attack on religion

It isn't hard to do

Nothing to kill or die for

and no religion too

Imagine all the people

Living life in peace

The abolition of private property

Imagine no possessions

I wonder if you can

The 'New International Order'

No need for greed or hunger

A brotherhood of man

Imagine all the people

Sharing all the world

A One World Government

You may say I'm a dreamer

But I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us

And the world will be as one.

The establishment either owns the major record companies outright, or controls them through the ability to make or refuse loans to those record companies that request them. Those record companies that do not promote the songs the establishment considers important to their goals do not get the loans and thereby do not operate at all. For those who question why the banks make the loans in the first place, the banks can always claim that they are only making loans to those companies that have given the indication that they will meet the needs of the music-buying public. It is the old question of which came first: the chicken or the egg?

And the young people continue to listen to music their parents don't understand.


In the September 1977 issue of Esquire magazine, author Ron Rosenbaum wrote an ardcle entitled "The Last Secret of Skull and Bones," in which Mr. Rosenbaum discussed a secret society at Yale.

He reported that an organization had existed for nearly a century and a half (since the 1820's or 1830's) that he called "the most influential secret society in the nation."

There are some who might disagree with this evaluation, but it is hard to disagree with some of his other conclusions. One, for instance, is rather startling. He wrote: "I do seem to have come across definite, if skeletal, links between the origins of Bones rituals and those of the notorious Bavarian Illuminists, (the Illuminati.)

Mr. Rosenbaum also mentions the names of some of this group's more illustrious members. Included in this list are two names of particular interest to those who study conspiracies today: William F. Buckley, Jr., the "conservative" who frequently states that there is "no conspiracy," and George Bush, Ronald Reagan's Vice President and a member of the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations.


This group has no known formal name but has been called the Bilderbergers by the conspiratorialists who first discovered them at their 1954 meeting at the Bilderberg Hotel in Oosterbeek, Holland.

The first Chairman of this group was Prince Bernhard, the husband of ex-Queen Juliana of the Netherlands (Queen Juliana recently abdicated in favor of her daughter.) This family, known as the House of Orange, is extremely wealthy. Dutch journalist Wim Klingenberg estimated that Queen Juliana owned 5 percent of the stock of Royal Dutch Shell, which was worth approximately $425,000,000 in 1978.

It has been reported that she also holds stock in Exxon, the world's largest oil company. Her total wealth has been estimated to be around $2 billion.

Her husband. Prince Bernhard, carefully explained his philosophy a few years ago when he wrote:

"Here comes our greatest difficulty. For the governments of the free nations are elected by the people, and if they do something the people don't like they are thrown out. It is difficult to reeducate the people who have been brought up on nationalism to the idea of relinquishing part of their sovereignty to a supernational body. This is the tragedy."

The Bilderberg organization has been described as being: "like the CFR, another of the formal conspiracies dedicated to creating a 'new world order.' The Bilderbergers meet once or twice a year at some obscure but plush resort around the world. Their secret conferences are attended by leading internationalists in finance, academics, government, business, labor from Western Europe and the United States."

The meetings are secret, and very little information is available to the public about the exact nature of their discussions. However, they frequently make known at least the broad subject matter prior to their meetings. It is always interesting to see just how long it takes for the various nations represented at the meetings to change their government's direction after a meeting on a particular subject.

One researcher into this organization reported: "But even the fragmentary reports available indicate that decisions made at these affairs soon become the official policies of governments around the world."

The importance of this organization can be at least partially exhibited by studying the 1966 meeting when a group of relatively unknown individuals were among the participants. These individuals were: Henry Kissinger of the United States; Palme of Sweden; Bieusheuval of The Netherlands; Gerald Ford of the United States; Helmut Schmidt of West Germany; Rumor of Italy; and Giscard d'Estaing of France; (Mr. d'Estaing did not attend the 1966 meeting but was present at the 1968 meeting.)

These men were then comparatively unknown, but eight years later each was the chief executive of his respective country or involved in top-level government positions.

Gerald Ford not only attended the 1966 meetings, he also attended the 1962, 1964, 1965 and 1970 meetings. And in fact, Prince Bernhard came to the United States in 1952 to campaign for Mr. Ford when he first ran for Congress.

A review of the membership lists of other meetings is very revealing, and shows the connection between the very wealthy of America and those of other countries:

  • 1971: Henry Kissinger; George Ball; Cyrus Vance; David Rockefeller; Robert Anderson, president of ARCO; and Baron Edmond de Rothschild, from France.
  • 1975: Garrett Fitzgerald, Irish Foreign Minister; Denis Healey, British Chancellor of the Exchequer; Robert McNamara, World Bank; David Rockefeller; Edmond de Rothschild; Margaret Thatcher, then the leader of the British Conservative Party, and later the Prime Minister of England; Father Theodore Hesburgh, President of Notre Dame University; and William F. Buckley, Jr.

The researchers into this organization have found that certain of the tax-free foundations have been funding these meetings. For instance, at the 1971 meeting at Woodstock, Vermont: ". . . all expenses . . . (were) picked up by the two tax-exempt (Ford and Rockefeller) Foundations."


When the Sixteenth Amendment, the Graduated Income Tax, was added to the Constitution, one of the provisions it contained under the legislation that created it was the ability to create tax-free foundations. By this method, certain wealthy individuals could avoid the graduated features of the income tax.

Certain Americans had already set up foundations that would become tax-free under the acts of Congress after the imposition of the Graduated Income Tax. Andrew Carnegie, the steel magnate, and John D. Rockefeller, for instance, set up their tax-free foundations prior to the income tax laws of 1913.

Other foundations have been created by the government under these laws to the point where it is estimated that there are over 100,000 of these organizations now operating in the United States.

Dr. Martin Larson, a researcher into the income tax laws and the tax-free foundations, tells the reader of his books that there are advantages in establishing a foundation:

  • The property conveyed to the foundation is a deductible contribution to charity;
  • Upon the death of the donor, it is immune to inheritance and estate taxes;
  • The fortune or business remains intact;
  • If the donor is a parent-company, this continues in business exactly as before;
  • The foundation is exempt from all taxation in perpetuity;
  • The individuals who comprise the interlocking directorate or management are in a strategic position to enrich themselves by transactions which, though neither charitable nor ethical, are nevertheless quite legal; and even if not, may be practiced with virtual immunity.

In 1952, the 82nd Congress passed House Resolution 561 to set up a "Select Committee to Investigate Foundations and Comparable Organizations."

This Committee was instructed to determine whether or not any of the foundations had been: "using their resources for un-American and subversive activities or for purposes not in the interests of the United States."

Congressman B. Carrol Reece, a member of that Committee, has stated: "The evidence that has been gathered by the staff pointed to one simple underlying situation, namely that the major foundations by subsidizing collectivistic-minded educators, had financed a socialist trend in American government."

The reason that the foundations are operated in this manner is in part explained by former Communist official Maurice Malkin who testified that, in 1919, a Soviet agent named Ludwig Martens ordered us

" , , , to try to penetrate these organizations, if necessary take control of them and their treasuries; . . . that they should be able to finance the Communist Party propaganda in the United States . . ."

The importance of the collectivistic-minded foundations is measured by the endowment funding that they provide for universities around the country, as together they stimulate about two-thirds of the total. Is this the reason that the large universities usually do not have a "free market" economist on the staff teaching economics, or a "conspiratorialist" teaching history?

The purpose of at least one of these foundations was illustrated in a conversation that Norman Dodd, the chief investigator and director of research for the committee, had with H. Rowan Gaither, the then President of the Ford Foundation. Mr. Gaither had asked Mr. Dodd to come to the foundation to ask him about the investigation. During the conversation, Mr. Gaither told Mr. Dodd:

"All of us here at the policy-making level have had experience, either in the OSS, or the European Economic Administration, with directives from the White House. We operate under those directives here. Would you like to know what those directives are?"

Mr. Dodd indicated that he would, so Mr. Gaither told him:

"The substance of them is that we shall use our grant-making power so as to alter our life in the United States that we can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union."

What Mr. Gaither presumably meant was that the American economy, its military power, its maritime power, etc., all had to be lowered so that America could be merged with the Soviet Union in a one-world government. Economically, the then expressed desires of the Ford Foundation are coming true.

[Illustration] from The Unseen Hand by Ralph Epperson


An Associated Press article of August 11, 1981, headlined: "Faltering U.S. now no. 8 in income per person."

One of the methods the foundations are promoting to reduce America's standard of living is socialism. One researcher, Gary Allen, has been studying the several Rockefeller foundations for some time and has concluded that he has been: "unable to find a single project in the history of the Rockefeller foundations which promotes free-enterprise."

That is quite a revelation for a foundation that derives its funds from the free-enterprise system.

As a demonstration that this statement is correct in the case of another foundation, in this case the Ford Foundation, Henry Ford II, a member of its Board of Directors, resigned his position because he felt that:

"the foundation is a creature of Capitalism. It is hard to discern recognition of this fact in anything the foundation does. It is even more difficult to find an understanding of this in many of the institutions, particularly the universities, that are the beneficiaries of the foundation's grant programs. (He was) suggesting to the trustees and the staff that the system that makes the foundation possible very probably is worth preserving."

One of the universities that has been funded by both the many Rockefeller foundations and the Rockefeller family is the University of Chicago. One of the instructors at this school is Dr. Milton Friedman, the supposed "conservative" free-market economist. Dr. Friedman is on record as saying:

"Over 40 percent of the income of the American people is now spent on their behalf by civil servants. We talk about how we avoid Socialism. Yet 48 percent of every corporation is owned by the U.S. government. We are 48 percent Socialist. . . . What produced the shift . . . to our present 48 percent Socialist society? It was not produced by evil people for evil purposes. There was no conspiracy."

One of the more famous graduates of the University of Chicago is David Rockefeller who received his doctorate in economics there. Dr. Rockefeller shares the view of Dr. Friedman that there is no conspiracy.


"In 1925, the Institute of Pacific Relations (the IPR) was established as an association of national councils The United States council was called the American Institute of Pacific Relations (the AIPR.) From 1925 until 1950, the IPR received 77 percent of its finances from American foundations and the AIPR. In turn, the AIPR received 50 percent of its financial support from the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation and the Carnegie Endowment. . . . The major institutional contributions to the AIPR included: Standard-Vacuum Oil (Rockefeller controlled); International General Electric; National City Bank; Chase National Bank (now called the Chase Manhattan Bank, and controlled by the Rockefellers); International Business Machines; International Telephone and Telegraph; Time, Inc.; J.P. Morgan and Company; Bank of America; and Shell Oil."

What did the very wealthy get for their investments in the AIPR and the IPR?

In 1951 and 1952, the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee held hearings on the AIPR and the IPR and concluded that:

"The IPR has been considered by the American Communist Party and by Soviet officials as an instrument of Communist policy, propaganda, and military intelligence.

"The IPR disseminated and sought to popularize false information including information originating from Soviet and Communist sources.

"Members of the small core of officials and staff members who controlled the IPR were either Communist or pro-Communist.

"The IPR was a vehicle used by the Communists to orientate American far eastern policies toward Communist objectives.

"Witnesses before the McCarren Committee (have) identified forty-seven persons connected with the Institute of Pacific Relations as having been Communists or Soviet agents."

The IPR sought to change the minds of the American people about the American government's Pacific relations, namely its interest in the Chinese government. One of the ways they accomplished this was to change the thoughts of the American student. For this purpose:

"American schools bought a million copies of IPR-prepared textbooks. The U.S. Government distributed some 750,000 copies of IPR pamphlets to American G.I.'s in the Pacific theater."

Some of the IPR's members, however, did not completely support what the IPR was doing, and attempted to let others know of the particular slant of the IPR. Mr. Alfred Kohlberg, an American businessman and a member of the IPR, testified before the Cox Committee that was discussing the Foundations, that he:

". . . had never paid much attention to what it was producing until 194S when he saw some material which he found questionable.

"He then studied an accumulation of IPR material and made a lengthy report which he sent in 1944 to Mr. Carter, the Secretary of the IPR, and to the trustees and others.

"As a result he came into communication with Mr. Willets, a Vice-President of the Rockefeller Foundation. In the summer of 1945, an arrangement was made, apparently through Mr. Willets, for a committee of three persons to hear Mr. Kohlberg's charges and his evidence of Communist infiltration and propaganda, and to make a report to IPR and to the Rockefeller Foundation.

"Later, apparently at the insistence of Mr. Carter, Mr. Willets withdrew as mediator. Mr. Carter had indicated that he would take the matter up himself.

"No investigation was held. The Rockefeller Foundation nevertheless went right on supporting the Institute.

"According to Mr. Willet's statement, great reliance was placed upon a special committee of IPR trustees who "reported that the Executive Committee had investigated Mr. Kohlberg's charges and found them inaccurate and irresponsible."

The overall purpose of the Institute of Pacific Relations did not surface until after the Chinese Revolution which ended when the Chinese Communists grabbed control of the government after a very bloody and lengthy revolution.

The story of the IPR's role in these events started in 1923, when Dr. Sun-Yat-Sen, China's ruler, became enchanted with the idea of Communism for the whole of China. He began relations with the Russian Communists and accepted their advice, ". . . since he was a friend and admirer of Lenin, a devotee of the economic philosophies of Karl Marx . . . '

Sun-Yat-Sen sent his heir apparent, Chiang Kai Shek, to Moscow to learn the merits of the Communist philosophy. But someone else had other advice for him, and sent him a copy of a book ". . . called The Social Interpretation of History by a New York dentist named Maurice William . . . a charter member of the Socialist Party. But intimate association with the Socialist hierarchy led him (William) to the conclusion that such radicals are escapists and frauds. He broke with the Socialist Party and set down his reasons in this book . . . "

The book had an enormous impact on Dr. Sun-Yat-Sen, who: "read and re-read William's book. Within months he had repudiated the Communists and was working to establish a Republic like that outlined by our own Founding Fathers in the Constitution of the United States."

Sun-Yat-Sun ruled for two more years before his death in 1925 made Chiang the ruler of China. It was about this time that Chiang was undergoing a religious experience after meeting May Lin Soong, the daughter of a Christian missionary. After Chiang went to her family asking for her hand in marriage, he became a Christian himself. This occurred in 1927, after Chiang expressed a liking for the quality and dedication of those who he knew were Christians. One who knew Chiang during this period was Dr. Walter Judd, a Christian missionary and later an American Congressman, who testified that this was the main reason Chiang had forsaken his religion to become a Christian.

It was no coincidence, then, that the Chinese Communist Revolution began in 1927 as well, started by Chou En Lai and Mao Tse Tung, amongst others.

Chiang began a change in the basic direction of the Chinese government when on May 5, 1931, he convened a People's Convention of 447 delegates, elected by the farmers' associations, labor unions, Chambers of Commerce and other businessmen's associations, educational and professional associations, and the Kuomintang, Sun-Yat-Sen's political party. These delegates were not directly elected by the people, but were elected by the members of the various associations and organizations.

Chiang was attempting to do two things with this convention:

  1. He wanted the delegates to adopt a Provisional Constitution, the first ever for China, and
  2. He was hoping that he could turn over some of the authority he possessed to the people themselves, through their elected representatives.

The Convention did indeed adopt a Provisional Constitution, and it was hoped and anticipated that the people could elect their own convention directly by popular vote four years later, in 1935.

In addition to the Constitution, the convention promised the Chinese people that the government would:

  1. develop all natural resources along modern lines;
  2. modernize agricultural methods;
  3. increase the production of raw materials;
  4. establish new industries to manufacture and process the nation's raw materials;
  5. extend the nation's communications, including railways, highways, and airlines;
  6. undertake vigorously forestation and river control;
  7. guarantee protection to all who invest their money in productive enterprises;
  8. provide measures for the harmonious cooperation of capital and labor;
  9. simplify the currency;
  10. encourage investment of hoarded capital; and
  11. place taxation on a scientific basis.

Chiang's government was called the Nationalist government of China and many have praised it for the dramatic changes it was making in the method of governing the Chinese people, and for the important benefits it was offering them.

One such supporter was Dr. Arthur Young, the financial advisor to the Chinese government from 1929 to 1946. He wrote:

"When the Nationalist government took over, they set out on a program of financial rehabilitation. During the period from 1928 to 1937, they succeeded in unifying and stabilizing the currency. They developed quite promptly very large revenues from the customs and internal revenue with the result that the Government had a large degree of financial stability by 1937."

In other words, Chaing's government was benefiting the Chinese people by protecting the value of their money by ending the destructive influences of inflation. Also, when government functions to protect the rights of the people, and their money is stable, a middle class develops.

Professor John Fairbank, certainly no supporter of Chiang, had to admit in his book The United States and China that: "The National government of China at Nanking in the decade from 1927 to 1937 was the most modern and effective that China had known."

However, China's experiment with democracy started to experience exterior problems when Japan attacked Shanghai, China, on August 13, 1937. Suddenly Chiang had a two-front war: on one front he was repelling the Japanese invaders, and on the other his troops were fighting the Chinese Communists.

The attack by Japan caused the most problems, however, as " . . . the Japanese rapidly overran the principal cities and destroyed the sources of revenue. The Chinese government, therefore, was forced to rely on paper money as their main financial resource available for the purpose of fighting the war."

The Chinese government was in need of allies, and they turned to America after Japan attacked at Pearl Harbor. Chiang sent the following telegram to President Roosevelt on December 8, 1941:

"To our new common battle, we offer all we are and all we have to stand with you until the Pacific and the world are freed from the curse of brute force and endless perfidy."

America, in addition to fighting Japan after Pearl Harbor, was also at war with Italy and Germany and became the ally of Russia, also fighting the Germans in Europe.

America's solution to the war, especially during the early stages, was what it called Lend Lease: the equipping of the military forces of its allies. However, America's priorities seemed a bit out of order, as in some cases it chose to equip its soldiers after its allies.

America decided to equip its soldiers in the European theater first; its ally Russia second; General Douglas MacArthur's military forces in the Pacific theater third, and China last. Aid to Russia's military forces had higher priority than America's fighting forces in the Pacific. And Chiang never received more than five percent of America's war material during the course of the war.

Chiang, desperate for assistance ". . . arranged for a loan of $250 million in gold from the United States to stabilize his money. The man in charge of delivering the gold to China was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Harry Dexter White a Soviet agent (and a member of the CFR.) Over a period of three and a half years, White shipped only $27 million of the $250 million that had been promised Chiang."

Notice that Mr. White broke the law by not delivering the aid that Congress had voted. But the story does not end there, as: "In 1945, Congress voted a second loan, this one of $500 million—but not one cent of this ever reached China. Again, Soviet agent Harry Dexter White was the culprit. China's currency collapsed."

Even with all of these problems, Chiang continued the fight against both the Communists and the armies of Japan. After the war ended in 1945, Chiang called a National Assembly on November 15, 1946, to approve a permanent constitution, which was approved on December 25, 1946. The plan was for this constitution to go into effect one year later, in 1947.

The new constitution provided for a social insurance system and for government management of the public utilities, but also contained a "Bill of Rights" to guarantee personal liberty and rights for the citizens of China. It also provided for the first nationwide election held in China (there had never been an election in China) on November 21 through 23, 1947.

The constitution also planned the convening of a National Assembly on March 29, 1948, where 1,744 delegates were to select the president and vice president of China.

Chiang repeatedly refused to run for the presidency of China, but the delegates to the Convention elected him for a six-year term by a vote of about seven to one.

But the Communists would not accept the popular mandate of the Convention and they continued their aggressive attack against Chiang's newly elected government

But Chiang's enemy was not the Japanese government, nor even the Communists under the leadership of Chou En Lai and Mao Tse Tung. It was the American government and Secretary of State George Marshall, a member of the CFR.

Secretary Marshall took measures in 1946 to impose "an embargo on the sale and shipment of arms from the United States."

Using Marshall's own boastful language: "As Chief of Staff I armed 39 anti-Communist divisions, now with a stroke of the pen I disarm them."

Chiang's elected government was doomed to failure and the Communists under Mao and Chou finally succeeded in forcing Chiang and his government to leave the mainland of China and to move his armies onto the offshore Chinese islands of Formosa.

The pressure mounted on the American government to recognize the Communists as the legitimate government of China. This pressure was in part assisted by the appearance of twenty-nine books published during the period of 1943 to 1949. John T. Flynn, in his book While You Slept, reviewed these books and classified twenty-two of them as being "pro-Communist" and the other seven as being "anti-Communist." The twenty-two books were reviewed with what Flynn called "glowing approval" in literary reviews appearing in the New York Times, the Herald Tribune, The Nation, The New Republic, and the Saturday Review of Literature.

Nine authors wrote twelve of these books and these same nine authors submitted forty-three reviews. In other words, the same pro-Communist authors were reviewing the pro-Communist books, either neglecting the anti-Communist books or ridiculing them.

The general line of the pro-Communist books was that Chou and Mao were "agrarian reformers" seeking to change the tenure of the land from the large landowners to the poor peasants. For instance, even George Marshall in 1946 said this about the Communism of Mao and his followers: "Don't be ridiculous. These fellows are just old-fashioned agrarian reformers."

Chiang and his supporters were now safely ensconced on the islands of Formosa, and it is now possible, with hindsight, to see what type of government Chiang gave the Taiwanese, the people who were on the islands before Chiang and his followers appeared.

Taiwan developed a true agrarian reform where today seventy-five percent of the farm land is owner-cultivated. This reform was achieved without a bloody revolution.

In addition, Chiang Kai Shek and his successors, have been elected by the people of Formosa, and Mao and his successors on mainland China have never allowed the Chinese the opportunity to freely elect their rulers.

Congressman Eldon Rudd in 1979 issued a message further detailing the differences between the mainland Chinese government of the Communists and the Taiwanese government of Chiang and his successors:

"With 270 times the land area and 53 times the population, the Gross National Product of Mainland China is only 10 times the G.N.P. of Taiwan The figures I have cited illustrate beyond contradiction the material abundance created by freedom's climate. In my view, this is the smallest and least important of the remarkable differences between the People's Republic of China and the free government of Taiwan. The true difference is spirit—the human condition, the absence of compulsion and regimentation, the presence of individual opportunity."

What was the cost of the Chinese Revolution spawned by Secretary of State George Marshall, Harry Dexter White, and the Communists Mao Tse Tung and Chou En Lai?

In 1971, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary issued a twenty-eight page document entitled The Human Cost of Communism in China that concluded that Chou and Mao, were "responsible for the deaths of as many as 64 million people."

In addition to the deaths of as many as 64 million Chinese, the Communist government has other areas of progress to be proud of. Valentin Chu is a professional journalist who was bom and raised in China but who escaped from the Communist regime. He wrote a book in 1963 called Ta Ta, Tan Tan, the Inside Story of Communist China. Mr. Chu devotes a chapter to Communist efforts to destroy the family, from which the following was taken:

"The family everywhere is man's source of strength and courage as well as his emotional harbor at times of natural disaster and personal misfortune.

"In China it was even more so. It was society itself.

"The Chinese Communists were acutely aware that their control of the people could never be effective unless the monolithic family system was destroyed, along with religion and conventional morals.

"This they set out to do as soon as they came to power."

Another move of the Chinese Communists to destroy the family was to move the Chinese mothers away from the home and into the fields as farm workers. As the Boston Globe put it on January 31, 1975: "Ninety percent of the women work in factories and on farms and then attend school," which obviously leaves little time to function as wives, mothers and homemakers.

A related move, according to Chu, was the commune system, which summarily put men, women, children and the aged in segregated labor camps, destroyed ancestral graves, and reduced marital relations to brief. Party-rationed sex-breaks.

But there are some who feel that all of these costs, the sixty-four million dead, the destruction of the family, and the establishment of the commune, was worth the price.

David Rockefeller said this about the cost of the Revolution after his return from a visit to China in 1973:

"Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing a more efficient and dedicated administration but also in fostering high morale and community of interest

"The social experiment of China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history."

This statement by Rockefeller was a little more than three years after Chairman Mao urged the "World to defeat U.S." by appealing to the peoples of the world to: "Unite and defeat the U.S. aggressors and all their running dogs."

The American policy towards Communist China was now due for a change. It was now time for the American government to recognize the Communists as the legitimate government of the Chinese people and to break all diplomatic relations with the Taiwanese government of Chiang and his successors. On July 15, 1971, Premier Chou En Lai, on behalf of the People's Republic of China, according to a press release issued by President Richard Nixon's staff: "extended an invitation to President Nixon to visit China at an appropriate date before May, 1972. Nixon accepted the invitation with pleasure."

It was no coincidence that President Nixon accepted that invitation on July 15, 1971, the very day that Radio Peking, China's official radio station, issued the following statement: "People of the World, unite and defeat the U.S. aggressors and all their running dogs."

The American press and President Nixon refused to acknowledge the hypocrisy of the Chinese government and accepted the invitation the same day they were calling for a world wide revolution against the United States.

Nixon's support of Red China was strange, indeed. As a Presidential candidate in 1968, Nixon said: "I would not recognize Red China now, and I would not agree to admitting it to the United Nations " And in his book, Six Crises, he wrote:

". . . admitting Red China to the United Nations would be a mockery of the provision of the Charter which limits its membership to 'peace-loving nations.' And what was most disturbing was that it would give respectability to the Communist regime which would immensely increase its power and prestige in Asia, and probably irreparably weaken the non-Communist governments in that area."

So President Nixon went to China and opened the doors to the Chinese Communist government of Mao and Chou.

The next step in America's betrayal of the Chinese people came in 1976 when first Chou En Lai and later Mao Tse Tung passed away. The tributes that flowed from the mouths of the world's leaders about these two bloody butchers was amazing.

These comments were made about Chou En Lai by the following individuals:

  1. Gerald Ford: "Chou will be long remembered as a remarkable leader."
  2. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger: "I admired Chou En Lai very much."
  3. Former President Richard Nixon: "Chou's legacy will be that he helped end the darkness. Only a handful of men in the 20th century will match Premier Chou's impact on world history."

These comments were made about Mao Tse Tung:

  1. Premier Pierre Trudeau of Canada: "The People's Republic of China stands as a monument to the spirit and political philosophy of Chairman Mao. Canadians recognize the path-breaking spirit of community that, under Chairman Mao's guidance, had contributed to the modernization of China."
  2. President Gerald Ford: "Mao was a very remarkable and a very great man."
  3. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger: Mao was "one of the titans of the age."
  4. Former President Richard Nixon: "A visionary poet, deeply steeped in the history of the Chinese people."
  5. The New York Times: "a moralist who deeply believed. . . that man's goodness must come ahead of his mere economic progress."
  6. Boston Globe: "the symbol of millions of human beings around the world for the possibility of social change, of economic and political progress, of dignity for the exploited."

These efforts came to a head in December, 1978, when the American government recognized the Chinese Communists as the official and legitimate government of China, after fifty-five years of accepting the governments of Sun-Yat-Sen and Chiang Kai Shek as the representatives of the Chinese people.

Others did not approve of the move of the American government. One, a former Chinese citizen, Dr. Chiu-Yuan Hu, told a Congressional Committee in Washington:

"To recognize the Chinese Red Regime is to discourage the people in the whole world . . . . It will make the world know that the great nation of the United States is unworthy to be a friend, that it sometimes betrays its most loyal allies."

Senator Barry Goldwater was one who felt that the move was improper. He told a news conference:

"I have no idea what motivated him other than (that) the Trilateral Commission, composed of bankers in this country and others, want to expand big business. This is a dangerous thing because it puts fear in our allies, especially our small allies, as to how the U.S. will keep its word." Arizona Daily Star (Tucson), Dec. 17, 1978, p. A-ll.

But the final betrayal to the Chinese people occurred on January 1, 1979, when President Jimmy Carter severed diplomatic relations with the only elected government China has ever had, the government on Taiwan, and went so far as to state that the United States position was that: "there is but one China, and Taiwan is part of China." Arizona Daily Star (Tucson), Dec 16, 1978, p. A-l.

The Nationalist government on Taiwan took the betrayal rather bitterly but stated that they would "neither negotiate with the Chinese Communist regime nor compromise with Communism."

Both moves caused Senator Barry Goldwater to charge that President Carter's motives were economic, saying that "he did it for the big banks of the world—Chase Manhattan and the French bankers—and for companies like Coca-Cola."

Ronald Reagan called the break with Taiwan a "betrayal."

The hypocrisy of the entire China scenario was dramatically illustrated in May, 1979, when the New York Times ran a picture showing Commerce Secretary Juanita Kreps in China touring the Great Wall of China, and she was smiling and apparently enjoying herself. This picture was attached to and just underneath the main article on the same page that headlined: "(Chinese) Poster says political prisoners tortured, starved in Chinese 'Eden.'"

The article doesn't say whether the smiling Secretary visited any of the "tortured" and "starving" Chinese prisoners, but it is doubted.

The question as to why the visiting American journalists and dignitaries who toured China in the '70's failed to mention the tortured existence of many of the Chinese people was partially answered by Edward N. Luttwak, associate director of the Washington Center of Foreign Policy Research at John Hopkins University, who also visited Mainland China.

Mr. Luttwak wrote an article for the April, 1977, Reader's Digest in which he asked a series of questions:

"Why have Amirican journalists failed to convey to us such fundamental Chinese realities? After all, the miserable poverty of the country is everywhere in evidence.

"Why, moreover, have previous visitors not been revolted by the schoolrooms where children are taught from booklets replete with the brutal images of harsh class-war propaganda?

"Why have our "Asia scholars" failed to denounce the militarism of a system where the cheapest suit of clothing for little boys is a mini-uniform complete with rifle?

"And above all, how could they have missed the central phenomenon of (Red) Chinese life: its unique, almost pure totalitarianism?

But it was too late. Secretary of State George Marshall, the Institute of Pacific Relations, and modern politicians had betrayed the only elected government of China and replaced it with the most brutal and bloody government on the face of the earth.

China was now truly Communist.


In 1831, Alexis de Tocqueville, a young Frenchman, was sent to the United States by the French government to study America's prisons and penitentiaries.

Upon his return to France, he wrote a book titled Democracy in America, an examination into the reasons why America had been successful in its experiment with a republican form of government.

He summarized his findings thus:

"I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her fertile fields and boundless forests; it was not there.

"I sought for it in her free schools and her institutions of learning; it was not there.

"I sought for it in her matchless constitution and democratic Congress; it was not there.

"Not until I went to the churches of America and found them aflame for righteousness did I understand the greatness and genius of America.

"America is great because America is good.

"When America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.

On December 2, 1908, Walter Rauschenbusch and Harry Ward formed the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America, commonly called the Federal Council of Churches, (the FCC.)

Dr. Rauschenbusch was a theologian who wrote: "If ever Socialism is to succeed, it cannot succeed in an irreligious country."

Dr. Harry Ward, a teacher at the Union Theological Seminary, was identified under oath as a member of the Communist Party by Manning Johnson, also a member. Mr. Johnson referred to Dr. Ward as "the chief architect for Communist infiltration and subversion in the religious field." The organization that these two created received a percentage of their income from a rather unusual, but not unexpected, source: " . . . John D. Rockefeller Jr. (who) had, from 1926 to 1929, contributed over $137,000 to the Federal Council of Churches—a sum equal to about ten percent of its total annual income from all sources."

Others became aware of the FCC as well. In 1927, Congressman Arthur M. Free introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives describing the Federal Council of Churches as a "Communist organization aimed at the establishment of a state-church "

The FCC partially repaid the support of the wealthy when, in 1942, it issued a platform calling for "a world government, international control of all armies and navies, a universal system of money, and a democratically controlled international bank."

The pressure against the FCC became too intense as the knowledge of its activities grew. So, the FCC decided to change its name but not its direction. On November 29, 1950, the FCC became the National Council of the Churches of the Church of Christ, (the NCC.)

The direction of the NCC was no different from that of the FCC. This was revealed in an interview with Gus Hall, the General Secretary of the Communist Party, USA, that appeared in the July 15, 1968, Approach magazine. Mr. Hall declared that Communism and the Church (apparently the NCC) share so many goals that "they ought to exist for one another." Hall continued by citing "current Red goals for America as being 'almost identical to those espoused by the Liberal Church. We can and we should work together for the same things.'"

Whatever the NCC was offering, many found it attractive. One "church," the Church of Satan, led by "high priest" Anton LaVey of San Francisco, recently became a member of the NCC.


This world-wide organization was formed on August 23, 1948, and follows much the same course as the National Council of Churches.

One example of this similarity is the fact that the secretary-General of the World Council (the WCC) in 1975, Philip Potter, said he "may sometimes be more radical than most Marxists."

Another official in the WCC has echoed Mr. Potter's sentiments. In 1982, Emilio Castro, the head of the Council's Commission on World Mission and Evangelism, said: "The philosophical basis of capitalism is evil, totally contrary to the Gospel."

These expressions of support for Marxism and against the free enterprise system are shared by those who attended their global conferences. In the meeting in November, 1975, the Jamaican Prime Minister, Michael Manley, told the assemblage of delegates: "that Christendom must help destroy the capitalist system and create a new world economic order. His speech . . . received prolonged applause. . ."

The WCC puts its money where its convictions are. The organization has created a Program to Combat Racism, (the PCR.) Since 1970, this organization has given over $5,000,000 to more than 130 organizations that are ostensibly fighting racism in thirty countries.

But nearly half of that money has gone to guerillas seeking the violent overthrow of white regimes in Southern Africa.

But the WCC is rather selective in that "not a cent of PCR money goes to dissident groups in the Soviet Union . . . ,"

This is curious since it is estimated that there are nearly 5,000,000 Russians in 3,000 forced labor concentration camps in Russia. One who should know is Avraham Shifrin, a Russian who was exiled by the Russian government in 1970 and who is executive director of the Research Center for Prisons, Psych-prisons and Forced Labor Concentration Camps of the U.S.S.R. He has stated that "the largest group of individuals in the concentration camps is made up of faithful Christians" who are there strictly and solely because they are Christians.


In 1871, a Freemason named Albert Pike copyrighted an 861 page book titled Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry prepared for the Supreme Council of the Thirty-Third Degree for the Southern Jurisdiction of the United States and Published by its Authority. Many historians believe that Mr. Pike wrote the book himself.

He had an interesting background. Many historians claim that he was selected by Guiseppe Mazzini to head the Illuminati in the United States. In addition, he became a brigadier general in the Confederate Army during the Civil War.

Mazzini wrote Pike in January, 1870, about the need to create a "super-rite" inside the traditional Masonic order:

"We must allow all of the federations (the Masons) to continue just as they are. . ..

"We must create a super-rite, which will remain unknown to which we will call those Masons of high degree whom we shall select. . ..

"These men must be pledged to the strictest secrecy.

"Through this supreme rite, we will govern all Freemasonry which will become the one international center, the more powerful because its direction will be unknown."

Mazzini's letter was written before Pike wrote his study of the thirty-two degrees of Masonry titled Morals and Dogma so it is conceivable that his book, which Pike states is not "intended for the world at large," is intended for this "super-rite" inside the Masons. In any event, its contents are extremely revealing as can be illustrated from the following gleaning of some of its more salient points.

The book makes the statement that Masonry is a religion: "Every Masonic Lodge is a temple of religion, and its teachings are instructions in religion." "Masonry is a worship . . . " He later identified what it was that Masonry worshiped: "Behold the object, the end, the ultimate annihilation of evil and restoration of Man to his first estate by Reason. . . " "In the beginning was . . . the word . . . the Reason that speaks." "The Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Masonry has become. . . a teacher of great truths, inspired by an upright and enlightened reason." "Reason is the absolute, for it is in it we must believe."

Pike stated what the greatest delight of his "religion of reason" would be when "Human reason leaps into the throne of God and waves her torch over the ruins of the universe."

He ridiculed Christianity: "The teachers, even of Christianity, are in general the most ignorant of the true meaning of that which they teach." " . . . Jesus of Nazareth was but a man like us " (Masonry) . . . sees in Jesus a great teacher of morality."

And a belief in God: "Self, . . . the true ruler of the Universe." "The conception of an Absolute Deity outside of or independent of Reason is the idol of Black Magic."

Pike's religion has many of the objects and beliefs of traditional Christianity: an altar ("Masonry, around whose altars "); a "born again experience: (Initiation [into the Mysteries] was considered to be a mystical death . . . and the [initiate] was then said to be regenerated, new born. . .") and a baptism: ( . . . baptism . . . [is a symbol] of purification necessary to make us perfect Masons.")

Pike identifies the subject of Masonic worship: "Lucifer, the Light-Bearerl Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! It is he who bears the Light . ."

He limits the individual's God-given right to life: "It is not true to say that 'one man, however little, must not be sacrificed to another, to a majority or to all men.' That is not only a fallacy, but a most dangerous one. Often, one man and many men must be sacrificed, in the ordinary sense of the word, to the interests of the many."

And finally, Mr. Pike states what the ultimate goal of the Masons was: ". . . the world will soon come to us for its sovereigns (political leaders) and pontiffs (religious leaders.) We shall constitute the equilibrium of the universe and be rulers over the masters of the world."

The goal of the Masons, according to Mr. Pike, is to become the "rulers over the masters of the world."

The secret power behind the power!