CHAPTER THREE
GLOBAL SCHOOLING: THE REEDUCATION
OF AMERICA
“National security today involves more than military preparation.
Global education is one of the essential new dimensions.
“The globalization of the human condition is interweaving the
destinies of all nations and peoples at an accelerating rate and
affecting many aspects of life. Global education involves
multidisciplinary perspectives about the extended human family, the
existing condition of mankind and the planet, and foreseeable
consequences of present trends and alternative choices.”1
Note that
the above was written by Robert Leestma of the U.S. Office of
Education, a contributor to the 1979 book, Schooling for a Global
Age (See bibliography).
While the previous chapter detailed the religion of Humanism and its
thrust behind Trilateralism, this chapter seeks to document a
massive re-education program of American school age children - and
unwilling parents, who remain a major obstacle to a smooth
transition to a global society.
On the back dust cover of the above quoted book, it is noted:
“This book is one of a series of three books on issues and practices
in schooling. The other two books deal with the arts and education
and with school-community relations. The series was commissioned to
provide background information for A Study of Schooling in the
United States, the results of which will be published subsequently.
“2
Also noted are the financial backers of the studies:
-
The Danforth Foundation
-
The John D. Rockefeller III Fund
-
Martha Holden Jennings Foundation
-
Charles F. Kettering Foundation
-
Charles Stewart Mott Foundation
-
The Needmor Fund
-
The Rockefeller Foundation
-
The Spencer Foundation
-
U.S. Office of Education
-
National Institute of Education 3
Emphasis is added to note two things: first, the Rockefeller and
Kettering foundations originally funded the Trilateral Commission.
Second, public funds are intermixed with private funds to facilitate
and implement a non-public supported or authorized endeavor. We have
chosen to analyze Schooling for a Global Age because of its
authority of scholarship, financial backing and impact. It is not an
“official” US government publication, but government officials are
quoted and substantial government funds were provided so the study
could be undertaken.
In light of this, we can be sure the book typifies the thinking of
the National Education Association (NEA), the Department of
Education, the various foundations listed and most importantly, the
thinking of David Rockefeller et al.
A PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION FOR WORLD
CITIZENSHIP
Keeping in mind the last chapter dealing with Humanism, the
following “purpose statement” exemplifies the Humanist philosophy on
global education:
. “To develop student understanding of themselves as individuals.
. ‘To develop student understanding of themselves as members of the
human species. . “To develop student understanding of themselves as inhabitants and
dependents of planet Earth. . “To develop student understanding of themselves as participants in
global society. . “To develop within students the competencies required to live
intelligently and responsibly as individuals, human beings,
earthlings, and members of global society. “...We endeavor to create in world-centered schools the kind
of social order, the organizational climate, the physical
environment, and the formal curriculum that support and
further the purposes of global education.”4 “Identities, loyalties, and competencies as well as rights,
duties, obligations, and privileges are associated with each of
these goals. For example, students might explore the issues
involved and discuss the rights one has by virtue of being a
member of the human species. The Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, the Humanist Manifesto, and UNICEF and the
Rights of the Child are among many documents and other materials
which can be used in considering this question. “5
According to Irving H. Buchen, the student “...will be capable of
sustaining many allegiances, without contradiction, on both a
national
and international scale, and be closer to being, especially through
the
concept of global perspectives, a world citizen.”6
The Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies paper, American Education
and Global Interdependence, states:
“The educational enterprise has a vital role to play in preparing
present and future generations of Americans to cope with
inter-dependence. Universities contain intellectual skills needed to
develop the knowledge base about global interdependence; developing
a more secure knowledge base should facilitate greatly the building
of political consensus on what we should do about global
interdependence.
The mass media by their very nature are event-centered, imposing on
schools and colleges an obligation to provide students with the
continuity and depth of understanding demanded by complex long-term
interdependence issues.
Schools, furthermore, have the golden opportunity, if they
will but use it, of shaping the world views of future generations
of Americans along lines more compatible with the realities of
global interdependence before these views become hardened
through maturation along other less compatible lines. “7
Global education requires the conversion of existing local
educational systems -primarily those at the elementary and secondary
school levels -to produce students who see themselves not as
Americans but as participants in a world society.
Why? Because “nationalism” and “individualism” are lumped in with
the” other less compatible lines.”
Society must be planned, they say, in overt and covert ways;
individual ethnic, cultural and intellectual differences will be
subordinated to some predetermined set of characteristics set forth
by the elitist group preparing us for global interdependence.
AN ACTION PLAN IS UNDERWAY
The Aspen Institute study noted,
“The task of bringing about the
kind of transformation which will make education a better instrument
for coping with interdependence is formidable.”8
To achieve their
plan, global educators propose to identify and concentrate action
upon what they call “critical leverage points” in our present
educational system. The plan is to subvert and change these critical
points into a program to achieve global goals.
When analyzed,
Aspen’s six point plan of action is nothing less than cultural
genocide:
“Point 1: Revise curricula, the content of teacher training and
community education toward global education. It is proposed to use
the U.S. Department of Education as well as independent foundations
and local school systems for this purpose. “Point 2: To obtain support from political and educational leaders
at both national and local levels, particularly from boards of
trustees and professional or organizations, to mold public support
for global education. “Point 3: To use universities and research institutions to develop a
“knowledge base” on interdependence in order to help build the
political consensus necessary for global policies. “Point 4: To shape existing world outlooks within American popular
culture. “Point 5: To reach outward to the world through educational
institutes, particularly through the United Nations. “Point 6: To
influence mass media to these ends, particularly through the use of
internships that are part of professional training in mass
communications.”9
(Authors’ note: there are many college-age
students who have been raised in prototype “global schools” who
think in global terms and can be “interned” in strategic places
within the media.)
Aspen makes it clear that this is an activist plan:
“Achieving the
educational transformation, which the future demands will require
all
of the spirit of conquest and aspiration which we possess.”10
CENTRALIZED, GOVERNMENT-CONTROLLED
EDUCATION REQUIRED
Globalists recognize that American education is essentially
decentralized and that public education has historically played a
role in the teaching of American history and government. Thus, one
objective is to heavily reduce the amount of time devoted to the
study of these subjects now required in the curricula of most
states. These America-oriented curricula will be replaced with ones
concentrating on world history and politics.
They describe the current educational system as a “constitutional
incongruity.” Certain constitutional conflicts do exist which cannot
be overcome as long as education remains in the hands of local and
state governments. A major answer to this was the creation of the
Department of Education, which was heavily lobbied by the
global-minded National Education Association (NEA).
The Aspen study also cited Roger Ulrich’s The Control of Human
Behavior. According to Ulrich, conditioning is supposed to start at
the age of two years.11 It is recognized within the global education
community that the critical years for the establishment of values
and ideas is around seven to twelve. Consequently, it is planned to
subject students to a curricula which employs behavioral techniques
involving so-called “values clarification” and situational ethics.
This manipulates students into an artificial belief structure. Who
picks the values they will be taught? Which set of ethics will be
used?
These techniques are close to those of Goebbels’ in Nazi Germany, or
Soviet and Chinese propagandists of today. These are programs for
human behavioristic manipulation, not education!
THE PLAN IS UNDERWAY
Don’t make the mistake of underestimating the forces behind global
schooling. This is not some passive, “pie-in-the-sky” ideological
exercise of academia -it is highly organized, completely funded and
well staffed. It is sweeping the country.
The following “timetable” is quoted exactly from pages 240-241 of
Schooling for a Global Age.
“PHASE 1, PREPARATORY PERIOD - BY 1980:
. Every state education department and most school systems and
teacher education programs would have a collection of some basic
references on global education and would have provided opportunities
for selected staff members to become aware of the global education
concept, some relevant research, successful programs elsewhere, and
local possibilities. . In-service education programs would be
available in every region of the country to begin to acquaint
teachers and others with the global education concept.
. A survey of the role of the world in the community, region, or
state and vice versa would have been conducted, planned, or under
consideration in a majority of states.
“PHASE 2 - BY THE MID-1980s:
. Study groups would be at work in a sizeable proportion of state
education departments, local school systems, and teacher education
institutions to analyze and enrich existing curricula, requirements,
and materials from a global perspective. . In-service education
opportunities would be available in the majority of states,
including through teacher centers. . Pre-service education programs
would be offering some orientation to global education, at least as
an option. . Initial research agendas would be established and
studies and surveys begun.
. A national baseline survey of the knowledge and attitudes of
students, teachers, administrators, parents, and community leaders
on global education concerns would be completed. . Every state
education department and a sizeable proportion of school districts
would become involved in an international educational exchange
program for students and/ or staff . State and local school board
policy statements would be giving explicit support to global
education.
. National public awareness and local community support would
be growing, in part, because of increased attention to global
problems and issues in the mass media, particularly television, and
in the schools.
“PHASE 3 - BY 1990:
. Teachers in every state would have access to in-service education
programs for global education, at least at the awareness level.
. Good case-study material on the initiation or improvement of
global education programs in a variety of school and community
situations would be becoming widely available. . All school
districts, state education departments, and preservice
teacher-education programs would have access to information
clearinghouses and resource centers on global perspectives in
education.
. Teacher certification requirements in a sizeable number of states
would begin to reflect global education concerns. . State curriculum
requirements in a sizeable number of states would begin to reflect
global education objectives. . School accreditation requirements
would begin to reflect attention to global education.
. Local, state, and national assessments of educational progress
would include attention to global educational concerns.
. Textbooks and other educational materials would increasingly
provide more adequate treatment of global issues and
perspectives. “12
PARENTS NEED TO BE EDUCATED ALSO
John I. Goodlad wrote in Schooling for a Global Age:
“Parents and the general public must be reached also.
Otherwise, children and youth enrolled in globally oriented
programs may find themselves in conflict with values assumed
in the home. And then the educational institution frequently
comes under scrutiny and must pull back. “13
The question basically boils down to this: “Are your values good
enough for your children, or not?” We have passed through the
UNsponsored
“International Year of the Child” which preached children’s
rights. In Sweden it is now against the law to spank your own child
who could report you to the authorities for “maltreatment.”
This thought is expanded:
“Parents should understand that developing independent
individuals is not a goal of government education,-and this becomes
apparent only with an understanding of the educator’s view of an
individual: ‘The emerging modern individual places his confidence
not
in society’s norms, not religion’s rules, nor parents’ dictates, but
in his
own changing experience. He is, in a very deep sense, his own
highest
authority. He chooses his own way.’ “14
The greatest obstacle to the implementing of global schooling is not
lack of funding, trained teachers or global textbooks -it is the
parent who is skeptical about the federal government (with its
blurred distinctions between private and public institutions) being
better qualified to say how his child should be raised and educated.
“Rebel” parents who have chosen to educate their children at home
have become “examples” to globalists who drag the parents into court
on civil and criminal charges of negligence.
Private schools across the country have continuously fought an
onslaught of legislation that would destroy them, if passed.
Whenever a student is transferred to a private school, the public
school he or she attended loses state and federal budget funds for
the following year. In many cases, the formula for determining
funding is disproportionate to the total number of students in
attendance; thus, if 40% of the students withdrew to private
schools, those schools could lose 70 or 80% of its funding. This is
intolerable to public educators, and pressure is put on the parent
to re-enroll the student in public school.
One of the key activist groups that deals with parent as well as
student problems is the National Education Association (NEA);
possibly it is the most powerful special interest group in operation
today. The NEA sent more delegates to the Democratic National
Convention in 1980 than any other interest group including trade
unions.
The NEA worked closely with the Trilaterally oriented Carter
administration in setting up the long sought after Federal
Department of Education to centralize US education.
A national movement was recently underway to pass legislation
allowing tuition tax credits for parents of students enrolled in
private
schools. This is not surprising in that they are paying for two
educations at the same time -private and public. If passed, it would
have dealt a fatal blow to global educators because it would have
encouraged parents to seek better, private education for their
children; in turn, public schools would have their funding
automatically chopped.
The National Education Association was
successful at blocking this legislation.
HOW GLOBAL EDUCATION IS BEING FINANCED
We noted earlier that the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies is
funded primarily by Atlantic Richfield, Rockefeller, Kettering,
Weyerhaeuser, Ford and the Markle Foundations. In addition, we saw
that almost 40% of Aspen’s funding came from the National Endowment
for the Humanities (NEH).
NEH granted a whopping total of $185.3 million in 1979 to many
different Humanistic and globalist endeavors, including Aspen
Institute. While the US taxpayer contributes about 80% of NEH’s
annual funding, the remaining 20% comes from Lilly Endowment, the
Ford Foundation and the Andrew W. Mellon and Alfred P. Sloan
Foundations.
Watchers of the Public Broadcasting System will see many
global-oriented shows sponsored by Ford Foundation.
The Kettering Foundation, a main backer of the Trilateral
Commission, has as its purpose statement:
“To strengthen the
mechanisms for citizen participation in public policy formation and
implementation, and to support the forces for world order and peace.
It
supports only innovative, high-risk programs which do not receive
sufficient attention from other sources. “15
Table I gives you an idea of what Kettering considers “innovative,
high risk.”
We noted earlier that Kettering was a supporter of Schooling for a
Global Age. That book also states, “Sub-study on the teaching of
global education in schools [is] supported by an additional grant
from the Charles F. Kettering Foundation.”17 (Emphasis added.)
Among the Kettering directorship, we find two notable Humanists:
George Gallup and Norman Cousins. Cousins is a director of National
Educational Television and the U.N. Association of the U.S. Gallup
surveys, which are supposed to be so “unbiased,” are usually called
for when globalists want to “prove” their case to the public by
doing a public opinion survey.
While the authors have not done an exhaustive tabulation on the
amount of money distributed by public and private institutions for
globalist ends, it is estimated that well over $1 billion per year
is sunk into “high risk” programs that would otherwise find no
support.
MASS MEDIA AND THE MARKLE FOUNDATION
The Markle Foundation was identified as a prime contributor to the
Aspen Institute and ties to the Morgan banking establishment were
noted in the previous chapter.
Markle’s statement of purpose reads: “The goal of the current
program is to strengthen educational uses of the mass media and
communications technology.”18 This foundation deserves extra space
as a prime purveyor of global education. The president of Markle
Foundation is Lloyd N. Morrisett. Over ten years ago, when Morrisett
was a vice-president of Carnegie Corporation, he and Joan Cooney
(wife of Trilateralist Peter G. Peterson) originated the idea for
Sesame Street.
He is currently chairman of the board of trustees at
Children’s Television Workshop, which produces Sesame Street.
According to the 1978 Annual Report of the Markle Foundation:
“In its first operating year, 1969-1970, the Workshop had 36
employees and a budget of$6.8 million. Almost all this money came
from three sources: The Office of Education, the Carnegie
Corporation of New York, and the Ford Foundation. The Workshop
itself was able to provide only $119,000 from its own income. “19
It
later stated that:
“CTW has established its status as a public charity under the Tax
Reform Act of 1969. The value of the public charity classification
to an organization such as CTW is that it allows the receipt of
individual or corporate contributions on a fully tax deductible
basis for the donor. It also facilitates philanthropic donations by
foundations. “20
Which foundations contribute to support Sesame
Street so it can stay on the air? Surprisingly, not Markle
Foundation, even though they are closely linked, Markle spends its
funds on more “high risk” ventures just starting out (see Table II).
What is interesting to see is that these ventures, like Sesame
Street, were persistently bailed out financially, year after year,
because they could not make their own way.
Further, major funds to
this end came from your taxes, as well as various foundations.
CONCLUSIONS:
. A main tenet of Humanism is to institute global education to
create a generation of “global citizens.” . Global education is being financed by the same
foundations that finance Humanism and the Trilateral Commission. . Massive amounts of public funds are also being used to these ends.
. There is a plan, a timetable, sufficient personnel and funds to
carry out the plan. . Global education ideology is in direct conflict with the
Constitution of the United States.
ENDNOTES: CHAPTER THREE
I. Robert Leestma, Schooling for a Global Age, ed. James M. Becker,
p. 233. 2. Ibid., Dust cover. 3. Ibid., Dust cover. 4. Lee and Charlotte Anderson, Op. cit., pg. 8.
5. James Becker, Op. cit., pg. 41. 6. Irving Buche, Learning for Tomorrow, ed. Alvin Toffler, p. 137.
7. American Education and Global Interdependence, Aspen Institute.
8. Ibid. 9. Ibid. 10. Ibid. 11. Roger Ulrich, Control of Human Behavior.
12. Robert Leestman, Op. cit., p. .240, 241. 13. John I. Goodlad, Ibid., 17.
14. Carl Rogers, Courses by Newspaper. 15. Charles F. Kettering Foundation Annual Report, 1979.
16. Ibid., p. 36. 17. James Becker, Op. cit., p. vii.
18. Markle Foundation Annual Report (1977), p. 4. 19. Ibid., p. 8.
20. Ibid., p. 17. 21. Ibid., p. 58-{j5.
Back to Contents
Back to The Controlled Global Education
CHAPTER FOUR
TRANSCENDING POLITICAL SYSTEMS:
CAPITALISTS VS. MARXISTS
One of the most pervasive -but downright erroneous themes in modem
textbook history is that of a competition between Capitalist and
Marxist systems. In fact, given objective examination of all facts
nothing could be further from the truth. The two political power
groups cooperate with each other, nurture each other and in general
are jointly responsible for much of the pain and suffering of the
average man on the street in this world.
Much of the confusion stems from an unwillingness to define monopoly
capitalism for what it is: a political power system that is much
like state socialism. State socialism, as in the Soviet Union, is
also remarkably akin in its operations to that of a monopoly. Thus,
a Brezhnev and a Rockefeller have much in common. Both are
monopolists and both thrive on use of political power to retain
their monopoly.
With this parallel in mind, let’s summarize the facts on the almost
continuous involvement of American elitist capitalists in the
buildup of Soviet military power over the past 63 years. It has been
a deliberate policy. That it was done shortsightedly for financial
gain is rather obvious. No one -not even a multinational businessman
-commits suicide knowingly, but it is not unheard of for avarice to
overcome common sense.
Apparently only one US institution has been clear-sighted on the
buildup of Soviet power. From the early 1920’s until recently only
one institution has spoken out. That institution is the AFL-CIO.
From Samuel Gompers in 1920 down to George Meany, major unions
consistently protested the trade policies that built the Soviet
military power. Why? Because workers in Russia lost their freedom
with the Bolshevik Revolution, and the products used to expedite the
killing of union members in Korea and Vietnam were made with the
help of American elitist controlled multinational company
technology.
But today Trilateral Commissioner Kirkland rules the
AFL-CIO and the protest is muted.
THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION (1917)
The March, 1917, Russian Revolution overthrew the regime of the
Romanov Czars and installed a free, constitutional government. In
November the fledgling republic was destroyed by the totalitarian
Bolsheviks and the Russian hope for freedom evaporated. The powerful
American elite was involved because Wall Street financiers and
attorneys intervened in support of the Bolsheviks.
A few examples of
this support are:
. Key Wall Streeters assisting the Bolsheviks included William Boyce
Thompson (director of Chase National, forerunner of Chase
Manhattan), Albert H. Wiggin (president of Chase Bank),
establishment attorneys and Morgan bankers. . The Wall Street bankers pressured the US and British governments
to support Bolsheviks, much as Rockefeller and Kissinger pressured
Carter into admitting the Shah of Iran into the US in 1979. The Wall
Street pressures were to assist Bolshevik propaganda, encourage
formation of a Soviet army and supply arms to the Bolsheviks. . Some statements by American elitist businessmen on the early
Soviets include the following letter from William Saunders, chairman
of Ingersoll-Rand Corporation, to President Wilson, on October 17,
1918: “Dear Mr. President: I am in sympathy with the Soviet form of
government as that best suited for the Russian people.”1
. And
another from Thomas D. Thacher, Wall Street attorney and member of
the establishment law firm Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett (former
Secretary of State Vance is today a member of this same firm): “. .
.The fullest assistance should be given to the Soviet government in
its efforts to organize a volunteer revolutionary army.”2
Wall
Street bankers, including Chase National bankers, aided the
Bolshevik Revolution by intervention with the United States and
British governments and were crucial to its success.
THE EARLY YEARS OF SOVIET RUSSIA
Wall Street then came to the aid of the newborn Soviet government.
Armand Hammer (now chairman of the Occidental Petroleum
Corporation) received the first concession contract in 1920 because
his father, Julius Hammer, was then Secretary of the Communist Party
in the US. However, the Rockefellers were not far behind. Under the
guidance of Reeve Schley (a Chase VP) the American-Russian Chamber
of Commerce was formed in partnership with Russian agents to break
the U.S. government ban on trade with the Soviets.
What could not be done legally was done illegally -even to the
export of military aircraft engines. By the late 1920’s Wall Street
and German bankers had put the infant Soviet Russia on its feet.
In 1925, a complete program to finance imports of Soviet raw
material to the United States and to export vital machinery and
technology to the Soviets was agreed upon by Chase National and
Prombank (a German bank).
At the same time -even though a government ban still existed on all
trade with the Soviet Union -Chase National was trying to arrange
for export of Liberty motors for military planes. Years later, when
writing Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, the
co-author (Sutton) found the evidence in State Department files and
learned that the Department of Justice was one step ahead of Chase
National and intervened to stop illegal exports.
Along with Equitable Trust, Chase National was in the forefront of
financing Soviet economic and military development in the 1920’s.
When acceptance of gold was halted by the State Department, the
Chase-Soviet business was arranged on the basis of platinum credits.
Above all, the formation of the American-Russian Chamber of
Commerce, with Chase VP Reeve Schley as its president, was the major
factor in circumventing the ban on US technology for the Soviet
Union. The Chamber was active in pressing the need for “cooperation”
and “peaceful trade.” The Chamber representative in Moscow was none
other than Charles Haddell Smith, previously in Soviet employ and a
member of the Soviet Peasant International.
By the late 1920’s, Chase was even attempting to raise loans for the
Soviets in the US, the first being a $30 million deal with principal
and interest, payable in dollars -flatly prohibited by State
Department regulations.
We also find in State Department files, letters from Chase refusing
to break off the illegal relationship when instructed to do so.
Public comment at that time was more caustic than in today’s tame
media.
Chase was called -among the more delicate descriptions -“an
international fence,” “a disgrace to America... They will go to any
lengths for a few dollars profit.”3
This intimate link between Chase National (which became Chase
Manhattan in the 1950’s) and the Soviets is unbroken throughout six
decades. .
THE FIRST FIVE YEAR PLANS (1930-45)
In 1930, Chase National was one of four American banks that financed
construction of the Five-Year Plans (master plans devised to
expedite economic expansion through rapid industrialization of the
once largely agricultural society) and, according to State
Department files, its advisor was Soviet agent Alexander Ginsberg.
In 1930, according to the U.S. Treasury, all Soviet accounts were
with the Chase National Bank. Today the principal Chase Manhattan
correspondent bank in Russia is Narodny Bank.
The Five-Year Plans have been hailed in the history books as a
triumph of Soviet engineering. In fact, the Plans were entirely
packaged and implemented by non-Russian companies mostly American
-for the profit of Wall Street. Rockefeller interests received a
large portion of the money that flowed from this initial effort to
modernize the Soviet Union.
This included its war industries,
ammunition, modern aircraft, tanks and warships.
WORLD WAR II
Lend Lease (the US program offering assistance to the Allies during
World War II) provided the means for the Soviets to resist Nazi
aggression. The Soviet Union was the recipient of the latest in US
military technology during World War II -once again for the profit
of large US multinationals.
POST WORLD WAR II
The buildup of Soviet economic and military power has continued from
1945 down to the present day under the guise of peaceful trade.
A good example is the truck industry: any truck plant that produces
civilian trucks can also produce military trucks. All Soviet
automobile, truck and engine technology comes from the West, and
chiefly from the United States. The Soviet military has over 300,000
trucks -the bulk of which came from these US-built plants.
Up to 1968 the largest motor vehicle plant in the USSR was at Gorki
• and it was built by the Ford Motor Company and the Austin Company
as a part of so-called “peaceful trade.” The Gorki plant produced
many of the trucks American pilots saw on the Ho Chi Minh Trail. The
chassis for the GAZ-69 rocket launcher used against Israel was also
produced there, along with the Soviet jeep and half a dozen other
military vehicles.
In 1968, while the Gorki plant was building vehicles to be used in
Vietnam and against Israel, further equipment for the plant was
ordered and shipped from the US.
Also in 1968 there was the so-called “Fiat deal” -a plan to build a
plant at Volgograd three times bigger than the one at Gorki. Dean
Rusk and Walter Rostow told Congress and the American public this
was “peaceful trade,” that the Fiat plant could not produce military
vehicles. However, as previously stated, any automobile
manufacturing plant can produce military vehicles. The main design
contract for the Volgograd plant was held by Fiat, whose chairman
was soon-to-be Trilateral Giovanni Agnelli. Agnelli is also on the
International Advisory Committee of Chase Manhattan Bank. (The IAC
chairman is Henry Kissinger).
Fiat in Italy doesn’t make automobile manufacturing equipment; they
use U.S. manufactured equipment. Fiat did send 1,000 men to Russia
for the erection of the plant -but over half of the equipment came
from
the United States, namely Gleason Works, TRW Inc. of Cleveland,
U.S. Industries, Inc. and New Britain Machine Co. So in the middle
of a war that killed 46,000 Americans and countless Vietnamese with
Soviet weapons and supplies, Trilaterals doubled Soviet auto output.
In 1972, the Soviets received equipment and technology from the West
to build the largest heavy truck plant in the world the Kama plant
-to produce 100,000 ten-ton trucks per year -more than produced by
all US manufacturers put together. It is also the largest plant in
the world, covering over 36 square miles.
Does the Kama truck plant have military potential? The Soviets
themselves answered this one. The Kama-produced truck is rated 60
per cent higher than the ZIL-130 truck, and the ZIL series trucks
are standard Soviet army trucks used in Vietnam, the Middle East and
Afghanistan.
In the opening paragraphs of this chapter we quoted the support from
William Saunders, chairman of Ingersoll-Rand, for the Bolsheviks in
1918.
Today we find the same firm Ingersoll-Rand aiding the military
buildup of the Soviet Union for military equipment in use by the
Soviets. According to Business Week:
“Meanwhile, a smaller but politically still more inflammatory
shipment is also rolling -toward Russia’s Kama
River truck plant. New Jersey’s Ingersoll-Rand Co. expects
to complete by late this year an $8.8 million order of
automated production-line equipment used to make diesel
engines at the Soviet manufacturing which produced trucks
used in the invasion of Afghanistan. The shipments are
authorized under the Commerce Department’s general
licenses, not yet under strict controls.”4
The pro-Soviet stance of American businessmen today, as well as in
1918, is well typified by Dresser Industries. The company is now
finishing a drill bit plant worth $146 million at Kuibyshev. The
Soviets need high-quality drill bits to step up oil exploration, and
oil is needed to fuel its overseas expansion program.
Dresser has not only continued to press ahead with the plant, but is
attempting to keep its Soviet role quiet to avoid public backlash in
the US. To quote Dresser’s senior vice-president Edward R. Luter:
“Dresser is keeping a low profile on the plant. We’re not looking
for any publicity, because we’re afraid if our name comes up, and
the project is called to people’s attention, they might remember
that they wanted to do something to stop it.
We hope we can let sleeping dogs lie, and let things continue
to roll.”5
The reason that Dresser wants to keep its role from the public is
simple: according to Department of Defense expert Dr. William Perry
the Soviets “will be able to detect and monitor all US subs using
oil
exploration equipment sold to them by the US.”6
KISSINGER AND SOVIET MILITARY BUILD UP
Henry Kissinger has been intimately connected for two decades
with the Rockefeller family as a family advisor before going to
Washington in 1970. In the March 1979 issue of The Trilateral
Observer the annual cash payments from Nelson Rockefeller to Henry
Kissinger were listed from 1958 to 1969 (Kissinger entered the White
House as National Security Advisor to President Nixon in 1969).7
Each year, cash payments averaging at least $12,000 were made to
Henry Kissinger. An official report on these transactions concluded
that the payments “were for work done for the family rather than on
a consulting basis through any governmental agency.”8 Kissinger can
be described as the intellectual hired hand of the Rockefellers.
Kissinger was responsible for brushing aside information that our
exports to the Soviets had military potential and for forcing US
government officials to approve export of equipment with military
potential.
The co-author’s (Sutton) personal knowledge of the role of David
Packard (later Secretary of Defense, from 1969 to 1971) in
suppressing information of military potential, and the intimate
relations of David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger, suggests that
the Trilateral group was the origin of the 1970’s phase to profit
from the building of the military power of the Soviet Union.
Kissinger’s personal role can be gleaned from documents leaked to
columnist Jack Anderson, which read in part:
“At the time (1972) some officials, including then Secretary
of Defense, Melvin Laird, voiced concern that the Russians
might use the central Asian truck plant the biggest in the
world -to produce military equipment.”9
Kissinger brushed the misgivings aside. A confidential Commerce
Department memorandum states that in 1971 Kissinger “ordered the
Secretary of Commerce to grant three pending applications” for
construction of the Soviet plant.10 Another secret memo set the
final value of US-licensed equipment and technology at $1.5 billion.
Others -notably our Western European allies -were not so sure.
On
March 20, 1975, Kissinger cabled US officials in Paris on the best
way to quiet such doubts.
“Kama trucks are not tactical military
vehicles with cross-country capabilities,” the secret cable said.
“Some may ultimately be outfitted with front-wheel drive for muddy
or icy environment. However, trucks will not be equipped for deep
fording or have other features typical of military models.”
Kissinger’s cable concluded that “we see little likelihood of
diversion to military uses”12 even though there was ample evidence
on file in Washington that diversion to military uses would be made.
THE TRILATERAL VIEW OF COMMUNISM
In the light of the above material it becomes critical to know the
Trilateral opinion of Communism.
In Triangle Paper No. 13, Collaboration with Communist Countries in
Managing Global Problems: an Examination of the Options, we find the
Trilateral view of cooperation with Communist countries.
The objective for making the report was prompted “by a desire to
exploit any opportunities with the Communist countries for
cooperative management of certain international problems”.13
The
report did not have the objective of finding if such “cooperative
management” would be advantageous to the United States or if it
would enhance or reduce the security of the United States or whether
it would lead to a more peaceful world. The objective assumes that
“cooperative management” with Communist countries would be
advantageous and beneficial to the United States.
On the questions of whether such cooperation would strengthen the
Soviet Union, the report makes statements flatly inconsistent with
well-documented fact. For example:
“Some analysts have expressed concern
about the consequences that are likely to flow from successful East-West collaboration in strengthening the economic capacity and
therefore the international power of the Soviet Union.”14
To which question the report answers, “These consequences are
likely to be limited.”15
ESTABLISHMENT COVER UP
Today the massive contribution of the Eastern Establishment to
Soviet military development is widely known. It can no longer be
suppressed as it was in the early 1970’s.
Since previously “well-kept secrets” have leaked out, the new tactic
is to mislead the American public into believing that it was an
innocent
mistake on the part of Washington policy makers.
Specifically, when
Jim Gallagher in the Chicago Tribune cites the Bryant Grinder case
(precision ball bearing grinding machines were supplied to the
Soviets
and these machines assisted and enabled Soviet development of a
family of MIRV nuclear missiles with multiple war heads) and cases
where electronic equipment was converted for use in missile guidance
systems he says,
“In both of these cases the Soviets were able to
overcome serious gaps in technology with the inadvertent assistance
of
the United States.”16
“Inadvertent,” indeed! Many credible and acknowledged experts
were vocal in the early 1970’s concerning these precise shipments
and
identified the exact military end uses. At the Republican Convention
in
Miami Beach (1972) the co-author (Sutton) explained at length how
such shipments would be used by the Soviets.
The shipments were not
inadvertent: they were deliberate and made with the full forewarning
of
military end uses. In the past, warnings of the possible
consequences of
U.S. technological aid to the Soviets have fallen on “tuned-out”
ears. As the criticism became more adamant, specific attempts were
made to silence it.
So we can conclude:
1.
The military build-up the Soviet Union by some “American”
multinationals through technological transfers goes back 60 years,
and today is centered in the Trilaterally represented companies.
2. The blame lies almost entirely with a few international banks and
big business interests. Most important among them are Chase National
(now Chase Manhattan) and the Rockefeller-influenced General
Electric and RCA complexes. 3. Warnings of the expansion of the capabilities of the Soviet military
inevitably resulting from American technological aid have either
been ignored, suppressed or those daring to criticize have been
vilified. 4. These elitist interests are the prime source of virtually every
major crisis facing the United States today. Their greed and
shortsightedness has placed the United States in the most precarious
position in its entire history.
DAVID ROCKEFELLER AND SOVIET MILITARY
POWER
There is no question that Trilaterals -David Rockefeller included
have been stung by repeated strong and widespread criticism of the
Trilateral Commission.
At a 1980 World Affairs Council luncheon in Los Angeles,
Rockefeller voiced concern that “Misrepresenting the motives of good
and dedicated people will only narrow instead of broaden
participation
in the group’s discussion of international affairs.”17
Rockefeller specifically and at length denied that Trilateral
multinationals deal with the Soviet Union for “the sake of financial
gain.” The Wall Street Journal excerpts from the Los Angeles speech
boxed this Rockefeller comment to emphasize its importance:
“To some extremists, the Trilateral Commission is pictured
as a nefarious plot by an Eastern Establishment of
businessmen in the service of multinational corporations
who will do almost anything including going into cahoots
with the Kremlin for the sake of financial gain. “18
These are strong words. The use of buzz words such as “extremists”
and “nefarious” suggests an attempt is under way to cover facts with
diversionary tactics.
The weak position of Trilaterals in general is reflected in their
treatment of objective, factual criticism. The usual Trilateral
response to any criticism, whether valid or not, is to label it
“extremism.” The critic is immediately tagged either “far right” or
“far left” or, if the facts are too accurate for comfort, the critic
is merely ignored.
David Rockefeller argued further:
“Far from being a coterie of international conspirators
with designs on covertly ruling the world, the Trilateral
Commission -like the Los Angeles World Affair Council -is,
in reality, a group of concerned citizens interested in
fostering greater understanding and cooperation among
international allies. “19
Examine the facts above and compare them to the Rockefeller
rhetoric. The co-author (Sutton) has written five books since 1968
on the build-up of the Soviet Union by Western capitalists. Three of
the books are academic in nature, published by the Hoover
Institution at Stanford University. No one, including David
Rockefeller and David Packard, has denied the factual basis of these
books. The Soviets have also remained silent. They know the facts
are accurate.
Moreover, Commissioner David Packard, a Trustee of the
Hoover Institution, is well aware of the Stanford books. Hoover
Institution financed part of the research and in the early 1970’s
Packard was personally involved with suppressing those parts that
dealt with the build-up of Soviet military power.
ENDNOTES: CHAPTER FOUR
1. British War Cabinet Papers, 24/49/7197 Secret, April 24, 1918.
2.
Ibid. 3. Antony Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development
19/7 to 1930, p. 290. 4. Soviet Union Vital Goods Still Flow Despite Carter’s Curbs,
Business Week, April 28, 1980, p. 42. 5. Ibid. 6. W.A. Johnson, Daily News Digest, July 4,1980.
7. Antony Sutton and Patrick Wood, Influence of the Trilateral
Commission-Part I, Trilateral Observer, Vol. 2 No.3 (March 1979), p.
20. Trilateral Observer, P.O. Box 582, Scottsdale, AZ 85252. 8. Nomination of Nelson A. Rockefeller of New York To Be Vice
President of the United States, Hearings before the Committee on
Rules and Administration of the United States Senate. 93rd Congress
2nd Session September 23, 1974), p. 883. 9. Jack Anderson, U.P., February 8,1980.
10. Ibid. 11. Ibid. 12. Ibid. 13. Chihiro Hosoya et ai, Collaboration with Communist Countries in
Managing Global Problems, p. I. 14. Ibid.
15. Ibid. 16. Jim Gallagher, Bryant Grinder Case, Chicago Tribune, April 6,
1980.
17. Letters to the Editor, Wall Street Journal (April 30,
1980). 18. Ibid. 19. Ibid.
Back to Contents
|