The Rockefeller File
by Gary Allen

Back to chapter eight
Back to table of contents

Chapter Nine

Building the Big Red Machine

``There has been a continuing, albeit concealed, alliance between international political capitalists and international revolutionary socialists - to their mutual benefit.''

-Antony C. Sutton
Wall Street And The Bolshevik Revolution

That the Rockefellers are a unique and remarkable family is an understatement comparable to Custer observing that" the Indians seem restless today - just before his last stand. No fiction written would create such a family. No Hollywood movie mogul could concoct such a group to star in a celluloid epic.

The Rockefellers are bigger than life and stranger than fiction.

Yet, while many biographers have told of their fabulous wealth and virtually unlimited economic and political power, few have dealt with the most remarkable aspect of the family - its close relationship over many generations with its supposed arch-enemies, the Communists. Of course, there is much about this strange relationship that we do not know. But what is already a matter of public record is astounding. To say that things are not always what they seem is a hackneyed cliché, but there has never been a, mystery to match that of the world Communist movement and the identity of its ultimate backers.

A bit of background is required in order to understand our subject. The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia was obviously one of the great turning points in history. lt is an event over which misinformation abounds. The myth makers and re-writers of history have done their jobs well.

Today, most people believe the Communists were successful in Russia because they were able to gain the support of peasants who were sick of the tyranny of the Czars. This is not what happened.

While most know that the Bolshevik Revolution took place in November 1917, few recall that the Czar actually abdicated seven months earlier. With the collapse of Czar Nicholas II's monarchy, a provisional government was established by Prince Lvov, who wanted to pattern the new Russian government after the American Republic. But, unfortunately, Lvov was maneuvered out and replaced by Alexander Kerensky, an admitted Marxist who claimed to be an opponent of the Bolsheviks.

At the time the Czar abdicated and for the next several months, the eventual leaders of the Bolshevik Revolution, Lenin and Trotsky, were not even in Russia. Lenin was in Switzerland and had been living in exile since 1905. Trotsky also was in exile, working as a reporter for a Communist newspaper in -would you believe -New York City.

Trotsky was allowed to return to Russia with an American passport; Lenin was spirited across Europe in the famous sealed train. They joined forces and by November, through bribery, cunning, brutality and deception, were able to hire enough thugs and make enough deals to seize control of Petrograd. The Bolsheviks came to power not because the downtrodden masses of Russia called them back, but because very powerful men in Europe and the United States, including members of the Rockefeller family, sent them in.

But while these facts have been somewhat suppressed, the biggest secret of all is that throughout this period, the financing for the revolution came from super capitalists in the West, and primarily from the United States.

A meticulously documented book on this subject was written by Antony Sutton, a research fellow for the prestigious Hoover Institution for War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University. Entitled Wall Street And The Bolshevik Revolution, this book by a respected and fastidiously thorough scholar was almost universally

Building The Big Red Machine ignored by the mass media. One does not have to be a Quiz Kid to figure out why. Sutton sets the stage for the Bolshevik Revolution with this background:

" While monopoly control of industries was once the objective of J. P. Morgan and J. D. Rockefeller, by the late nineteenth century the inner sanctums of Wall Street understood that the most efficient way to gain an unchallenged monopoly was to" geopolitical - and make society go to work for the monopolists-under the name of the public good and the public interest. This strategy was detailed in 1906 by Frederick C. Howe in his Confessions of a Monopolist. Howe, by the way, is also A figure in the story of the Bolshevik Revolution.

In his book Howe had stated:

These are the rules of big business. They have superseded the teachings of our parents and are reducible to a simple maxim: Get a monopoly ; let Society work for you; and remember that the best of all business is politics, for a legislative grant, franchise, subsidy or tax exemption is worth more than a Kimberly or Comstock lode, since it does not require any labor, either mental or physical, for its exploitation.

Sutton postulates why wealthy men like the Rockefellers would cooperate with and even finance the very Communists who are allegedly sworn to bury them.

The British-born scholar points out:

... one barrier to mature understanding of recent history is the notion that all capitalists are the bitter and unswerving enemies of all Marxists and Socialists. This erroneous idea originated with Karl Marx and was undoubtedly useful to his purposes. In fact, the idea is nonsense. There has been a continuing, albeit concealed, alliance between international political capitalists and international revolutionary socialists-to their mutual benefit.

Through Sutton we can learn the names of the secret men who bankrolled the conspiracy in Russia. We know that no revolution can be successful without organization and money. The -downtrodden masses- usually provide little of the former and none of the latter. But the Rockefellers and their cohorts can provide both. In The Surrender of An Empire, the brilliant English historian Nesta Webster observed:

Had the Bolsheviks been, as they are frequently represented, a mere gang of revolutionaries out to destroy property, first in Russia, and then in every other country, they would naturally have found themselves up against organized resistance by the owners of property all over the world, and -the Moscow blaze would have been rapidly extinguished. lt was only owing to the powerful influences' behind them that this minority party was able to seize the reins of power and, having seized them, to retain their hold of them up to the present day.

Sutton introduces his evidence of -powerful influences" behind the Communists by stating:

In brief, this is a story of the Bolshevik Revolution and its aftermath, but a story that departs from the usual conceptual strait jacket approach of capitalists versus Communists. Our story postulates a partnership between international monopoly capitalism and international revolutionary socialism for their mutual benefit. The final human cost of this alliance has fallen upon the shoulders of the individual Russian and the individual American. Entrepreneurship has been brought into disrepute and the world has been propelled toward inefficient socialist planning as a result of these monopoly maneuverings in the world of politics and revolution ...

So long as we see all international revolutionaries and all international, capitalists as implacable enemies of one another, then we miss a crucial point-that there has indeed been some operational cooperation between international capitalists, including fascists.

Sutton then proceeds to present evidence of such cooperation. The proofs-which are on the public record that international banking elements, most notably Morgan and Rockefeller interests, financed the take-over by the Bolsheviks, are simply overwhelming. The thousands of facts and documents that Sutton cites are too numerous to even summarize here. For those interested in the complete

Building " The Big Red Machine " story, I highly recommend reading Sutton's book,

Wall Street And The Bolshevik Revolution And "War on Gold" try "The Rise of Hitler"

The Hoover Institute researcher asks the obvious question: What is the motivation behind this coalition capitalists and Bolsheviks? The advantages to the Communists are obvious. But of what possible benefit could such a union be to the super-capitalists of the West?

Sutton suggests that Russia was then - and is today- the largest untapped market in the world. Moreover, Russia then and now, comprises the greatest potential competitive threat to American industrial and financial supremacy." Wall Street, - says Sutton," must have shivers when it visualizes Russia as a second super American industrial giant." By saddling Russia with unproductive economic system dependent on the West for continuous infusions of capital and technology for survival Russia could be both exploited and contained Sutton concludes:

Revolution and international finance are not at all inconsistent if the result of revolution is to establish more centralized authority. International finance prefers to deal with central governments. The last thing the banking community wants is laissez-faire economy and decentralized power because these would disperse power.

This, therefore, is an explanation that fits the evidence. This handful of bankers and promoters was not Bolshevik, or Communist, or socialist, or Democrat, or even American. Above all else these men wanted markets, preferably captive international markets-and a monopoly of the captive world market as the ultimate goal....

Wall Street did indeed achieve its goal. American firms controlled by this syndicate were later to go on and build the Soviet Union, and today are well on their way to bringing the Soviet military-industrial complex into the age of the computer.

Of course, far more is involved here than just monopolists seeking new captive markets. The same people who bankrolled the Russian Communist Revolution turn out to be the same ones who fastened the Man graduated income tax onto the American middle-class while avoiding it themselves; and it is the same group that foisted the fraudulent Federal Reserve System onto an unsuspecting American public. The actions of these super-capitalists over a period of many decades reveal that they were not merely plotting to acquire more profits; they were involved 'in a conspiracy for control of the world!

No doubt all this has been a handy and profitable byproduct of the super-capitalist capture of Russia. But, it is only part of a bigger picture. Like the cartel capitalists, the Communists work for a world government. And world government is promoted from both the top and the bottom of the conspiratorial apparatus.

In the Bolshevik Revolution we have some of the world's richest and most powerful men financing a movement which claims that its very reason for existence is to strip of their wealth such super-rich cartel and banker capitalists as the Rockefellers.

But obviously these men have no fear of international Communism. lt is only logical to assume that if the financed it, and are willing-even eager-to cooperate wit it, it must be because they control it. Can there be another explanation that makes sense? Remember that for over 100 years it has been a standard operating procedure of the Rockefellers and their allies to control both sides of every conflict.

Having created their colony in Russia, the Rockefellers and their allies have struggled mightily ever since to keep it alive. Beginning in 1918 this clique has been engaged in transferring money and, probably more important technical information to the Soviet Union. This is made abundantly clear in Antony Sutton's monumental three volume history, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development. Using for the most part official State Department documents, Sutton proves beyond any possible doubt that virtually everything the Soviets possess has been acquired from the West, principally America. It is not an exaggeration to say that the USSR was made in the USA. No one has even attempted to refute Sutton's almost excessively scholarly works. They can't. But the misinformation machines that compose our mediacracy can ignore Sutton. And they do. Totally.

None of the foregoing makes sense if Communism really is what the Communists and the Rockefeller Establishment tell us it is. But if Communism is an arm of a bigger conspiracy to control the world by power-mad billionaires (and brilliant but ruthless academicians who have shown them how to use their power) it all becomes perfectly logical.

It is at this point that we should again make it clear that this conspiracy is not made up solely of Rockefellers and other bankers and international cartelists, but includes every field of human endeavor. Starting with Voltaire and Adam Weishaupt and running through John Ruskin, Sidney Webb, Nicholas Murray Butler, and on to the present with Insiders such as Henry Kissinger and John Kenneth Galbraith, it has always been the scholar looking for avenues of power who has shown the" sons of the very powerful- how their wealth could be used to rule the world.

We cannot stress too greatly the importance of the reader keeping in mind that this book is discussing only one segment of the conspiracy. Other important segments which work to foment labor, religious and racial strife in order to promote socialism have been described in numerous other books. These other divisions of the conspiracy often operate independently of the Rockefellers and other international bankers and it would certainly be disastrous to ignore the danger to our freedom they represent.

lt would be equally disastrous to lump all businessmen and bankers into the conspiracy. A distinction must be drawn between competitive free enterprise, the most moral and productive system ever devised, and cartel capitalism dominated by industrial monopolists and international bankers. The difference is crucial: the private enterpriser operates by offering products and services in a competitive free market, where consumers have numerous choices offered to them, while cartel capitalists use the government to force the public to do business with them. These corporate socialist-fascists are the deadly enemies of competitive private enterprise.

Liberals are willing to believe that the Rockefellers will fix prices, rig markets, establish monopolies, buy politicians, exploit employees and fire them the day before they are eligible for pensions, but they absolutely will not believe that these same men would want to rule the world or would use Communism as the striking edge of their conspiracy. When one discusses the machinations of the Rockefellers and their allies, Liberals usually respond by saying" But don't you think they mean well?"

However, if you assemble the evidence, carefully present your proofs, and try to expose these power seekers, the Establishment's mass media will accuse you of being a dangerous paranoid who is -dividing- our people. In every other area, of course, they encourage dissent as being healthy in a ' democracy."

The Rockefeller-CFR Insiders began pushing to open up Communist Russia to US traders soon after the revolution. However, at that time public opinion ran so high against the Bolsheviks because of their barbarism that it was official US government policy not to deal with the outlaw government. The US did not even recognize the Bolshevik regime until 1933.

Galloping to the rescue were the super-capitalists of the West-men like the Vanderlips, the Harrimans, and the Rockefellers. One of the first to arrive was Frank Vanderlip, an agent of the Rockefellers and president of the Rockefeller First National City Bank, who once favorably compared Lenin to George Washington.

Before the Bolshevik revolt, Russia had succeeded the US as the world's number one oil producer. The chaos and destruction of the revolution effectively eliminated Standard Oil's competition from Russia for several years until Standard could move in and get a piece of the Russian oil business.

In 1926, Standard Oil of New York and its subsidiary, Vacuum Oil Company, concluded a deal to market Soviet oil in European countries. Part of the price for the arrangement, it was reported at the time, was a loan of $75,000,000 to the Bolsheviks. In 1927, Russia's secret partner, Standard Oil of New York, built an oil refinery in Russia. The refinery helped immeasurably in putting the Bolshevik economy back on its feet. According to Professor Sutton," This was the first United States investment in Russia since the Revolution." (We have been unable to find out if Standard Oil was even theoretically expropriated by the Communists.)

lt is possible the Rockefellers still own oil production facilities behind the Iron Curtain and get the profits out through Switzerland. By doing this, they would not have to share the loot with stockholders or the tax collector.

Wherever Standard Oil would go, Chase National Bank was sure to follow. In order to rescue the Bolsheviks, who were supposedly the archenemy of profit-seeking businessmen, the Chase National Bank was instrumental in establishing the American-Russian Chamber of Commerce in 1922. President of the Chamber was Reeve Schley, a vice-president of Chase National Bank. According to Professor Sutton:

In 1925, negotiations between Chase and Prom-bank extended beyond the finance of raw materials and mapped out a complete program for financing Soviet raw material exports to the US and imports of US cotton and machinery ... Chase National Bank and the Equitable Trust Company were leaders in the Soviet credit business.

The Rockefeller's Chase National Bank also was involved in selling Bolshevik bonds in the United States in 1928. Patriotic organizations denounced the Chase as an -international fence." Chase was called " a disgrace to America ... They will go to any lengths for a few dollars' profits.-

Congressman Louis McFadden, chairman of the House Banking Committee, maintained in a speech to his fellow Congressmen:

The Soviet government has been given United States Treasury funds by the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks acting through the Chase Bank and the Guaranty Trust Company and other banks in New York City ...

... Open up -the books of Amtorg, the trading organization of the Soviet government in New York, and of Gostorg, the general office of the Soviet Trade Organization, and of the State Bank of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and you will be staggered to see how much American money has been taken from the United States Treasury for the benefit of Russia. Find out what business has been transacted for the State Bank of Soviet Russia by its correspondent, the Chase Bank of New York;

In his three-volume history of Soviet technological development, Professor Sutton proves conclusively that there is hardly a segment of the Soviet economy which is not a result of the transference of Western, particularly American, technology.

This cannot be wholly the result of accident. For fifty years the Federal Reserve-CFR-Rockefeller-Insider crowd has advocated and carried out policies aimed at increasing the power of their satellite, the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, America spends $90 billion a year on defense to protect itself from the enemy the Insiders are building up.

What has been true in the past is even more valid today. Heading the parade to transfer technology and increase aid and trade with the Communists are the Rockefellers and the Council on Foreign Relations.

The bandmaster for the entire enterprise is David Rockefeller.

Most Americans regard Nelson Rockefeller as the most important member of the Rockefeller family. He is, after all, the (unelected) Vice President of the United States. Since 1960 he has been a perennial candidate for the Presidency. Nelson Rockefeller is a compulsive extrovert who loves to be in the public eye. As a result, he is far better known than his brothers. But notoriety is an unreliable measure of power.

Students of the Eastern Establishment are well aware that while Nelson gets the ink, it is little brother David who 'wields the power. " As the de facto head of the American Establishment,- reports Time," It has been said that for him the presidency would be a demotion. " The New York Times" - concurs: "He has come to be regarded as a spokesman for enlightened American capitalism.- Of course, to the New York Times, "enlightened American capitalism" means government planning of virtually every facet of the American economy, major transfers of America's vital technology to the Communists, the internationalizing of American business through multinational holding companies, and the creation of a World Government.

In 1964 David Rockefeller and Nikita Khrushchev were closeted in Moscow for two and a half hours. The Chicago Tribune of September 12, 1964, reported:

David Rockefeller ... briefed President Johnson today on his recent meeting with Premier Nikita 5. Khrushchev of Russia ... the Red leader said the United States and the Soviet Union " should do more trade." Khrushchev, according to Rockefeller, said he would like to see the United States extend long-term credits to the Russians.

As a matter of fact, the meeting between Rockefeller and Khrushchev had been held two months earlier, in July. Apparently whatever trouble had developed was not settled until the President was briefed in September. Within a month, Khrushchev was deposed. David Rockefeller was soon meeting on the Black Sea with his successor, and in October of 1966 L.B.J. announced his new policy of "building bridges" to Eastern Europe. This was at the time the Communists were escalating the Vietnam War, and virtually all of the war materiel to do so came from the ammunitions factories of Eastern Europe. It seemed politically incredible for Johnson to propose such a policy while American troops were being killed and maimed by ammunition and weapons from the Communist bloc. lt would have been flabbergasting if one had not been following the machinations of David Rockefeller.

On October 7, 1966 , President Johnson, a man who has appointed a CFR member to virtually every strategic position in his administration.,stated:

We intend to press for legislative authority to negotiate trade agreements which could extend most-favored-natlon tariff treatment to European Communist states ...

We will reduce export controls on East-West trade with respect to hundreds of non-strategic items ...

Six days later, the New York Times- reported:

The United States put into effect today one of President Johnson's proposals for stimulating East-West trade by removing restrictions on the export of more than four hundred commodities to the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe ...

Among the categories from which items have been selected for export relaxation are vegetables, cereals, fodder, hides, crude and manufactured rubber, pulp and waste paper, textiles and textile fibers, crude fertilizers, metal ores and scrap, petroleum, gas and derivatives, chemical compounds and products, dyes, medicines, fireworks, detergents, plastic materials, metal products and machinery, and scientific and professional instruments.

Virtually every one of these "non-strategic" items has a direct or indirect use in war. Later, items such as rifle cleaning compounds, electronic equipment, computers, and radar were declared "non-strategic" and cleared for shipment to the Soviet Union. Congress drew the lines at sending -strategic- goods to the Reds, but the trick was simply to declare almost everything "non-strategic" A machine gun is strategic, but the tools for making it and the chemicals to propel the bullets were declared" nonstrategic.-

The Viet Cong and North Vietnamese received 8 % of their war materials from Russia and the Soviet bloc nations. Since their economies are incapable of supporting a war, the Communist arm of the conspiracy needed help from the Finance Capitalist arm. The Unite States financed and equipped both sides of the terrible Vietnamese war, killing nearly 55,000 of our own soldier by proxy. Again, the mass media kept the American public from learning this shocking truth.

Not surprisingly, the Rockefellers have been leaders in championing this bloody trade. On January 16,1967,one of the most incredible articles ever to appear in a newspaper graced the front page of the Establishment's daily, the New York Times. Under the headline, " Eaton Joins Rockefellers To Spur Trade With Reds," the article stated:

An alliance of family fortunes linking Wall Street and the Midwest is going to try to build economic bridges between the free world and Communist Europe.

The International Basic Economy Corporation, controlled by the Rockefeller brothers, and Tower International, Inc., headed by Cyrus 5. Eaton, Jr., Cleveland financier, plan to cooperate in promoting trade between the Iron Curtain countries, including the Soviet Union ...

International Basic Economy Corporation (IBEC) is run by Richard Aldrich, grandson of Federal Reserve plotter Nelson Aldrich, and Rodman Rockefeller (CFR), Rocky's son. On October 20, 1969,IBEC announced that N. M. Rothschild & Sons of London had entered into partnership with the firm.

Cyrus Eaton, Jr. is the son of the notoriously pro-Soviet Cyrus Eaton, who began his career as secretary to John D. Rockefeller. It is believed that Eaton's rise to power in finance resulted from backing by his mentor. So the agreement between Tower International and IBEC continues an old alliance. Although Eaton's name does not appear on the CFR's membership rolls, the Reece Committee which investigated foundations for Congress in 1953 found that the notorious Soviet apologist was a secret member.

Among the "non-strategic" items which the Rockefeller-Eaton axis is going to build for the Communists are ten rubber goods plants and a $50 million aluminum producing plant for the Reds. (Aluminum for jet planes has been considered -non-strategic- under the Johnson Nixon-Ford Administrations.)

Even more incredibly, the Times reveals:

Last month, Tower International reached a tentative

New York Times January 16 1967

Eaton Joins Rochefellers To Spur Trade With Reds.

Cleveland and New York Financers to set up an East-West Exchange

David Rockefeller,chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank, is the most important and most effective promoter In the US of aid to the Communists. He was all smiles (above) after concluding a deal in Red China with Chou En-lai; he has joined wit Cyrus Eaton Jr. (see clipping a left) to promote further trade with the Soviet Union; his successes have delighted such important Communist rulers a Soviet Finance Minister V. F Garbuzov, (below). Thanks to the House of Rockefeller, "trade" with the Communists (always financed by the US taxpayer, of course), now amounts to millions of dollars every year.

Agreement with the Soviet patent and licensing organization Licensintorg, covering future licensing and patent transactions. Until now, Mr. Eaton said, the Russians have left the buying and selling of licenses and patents to the Amtorg Trading Corporation, the official Soviet agency in this country for promoting Soviet-American trade.

This means that the Rockefellers and Eatons have a monopoly on the transfer of technological capability to the supposed enemies of the super-rich, the Soviet Union. According to the Times:

Mr. Eaton acknowledged the difficulties that Amtorg's representatives had encountered here in trying to arrange licensing agreements with American companies." As you can imagine," he said, " it is almost impossible for a Russian to walk into the research department of an American aerospace company and try to arrange the purchase of a patent."

Certainly every loyal American will say to himself, " Well, I would hope to God the Soviets couldn't walk into our defense plants and buy a patent." The Rockefellers and the Eatons have solved that problem for the Communists. Now, instead of dealing with an official agency of the Soviet government, American concerns will be dealing with the Rockefellers. You can imagine how many doors that will open to the Communists!

Thus, by the purchase of patents for the Communists, the Rockefellers are virtually in charge of research and development for the Soviet military machine. Their goal is to enable the Soviets to mass-produce American developments. And let us emphasize that the transfer of such technical knowledge is even more important than the sale of weapons. Ammunition is used once, then it is gone. Weapons break down, vehicles need replacement parts, and sophisticated arms are not easy to produce in a backward economy, no matter how much manpower is available.

While the trade doors were, opened during the LBJ Administration, the advent of détente under the Nixon Kissinger era produced an open house in American plants

and research labs for the Red traders. Now, a process that may have taken an American corporation a decade to develop is transferred in toto to the Communists. Does it make sense to spend $90 billion a year on national defense and then deliberately to increase the war-making potential of an avowed enemy? It does to Mr. Rockefeller and the Insiders.

Since the Rockefellers now have an exclusive contract to supply American patents to the Soviets, they are by dictionary definition agents of the Big Red Machine. lt goes without saying that they are the most important Communist agents in history. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to define the Communists as Rockefeller agents?

An increasingly important tool for the looting of America by the Rockefellers and their cohorts is the Export-Import Bank, known as Eximbank. lt was established in 1934 to finance and promote trade with the Soviet Union. But it wasn't until Richard Nixon signed a -Presidential Determination- on October 18, 1972, that the Eximbank began to finance trade with the Soviets.

The process by which the Eximbank works is simple enough. An US exporter goes to his own bank, which makes arrangements for the Eximbank to loan money to the exporter's foreign buyer. Eximbank then grants a credit to the American bank, which in turn pays the US exporter. Thus the exporter is immediately paid, the American bank is cut in on the deal, and the foreign importer gets a subsidized interest rate.

Who pays the interest subsidy? You hardly need ask. The US taxpayer pays it through Treasury grants to the Eximbank. While most Americans consider themselves lucky if they can arrange to borrow money for less than twelve % interest, and even the prime rate (the rate at which the largest American corporations with the best credit rating can borrow) is as high as ten %, the Eximbank has been making loans to foreigners at six % interest. The difference is a four % subsidy to any foreigner who buys our goods.

What happens if the foreign buyer defaults? Auf Wiedersehen. Adios. Sayonara. If the customer sneaks out of the restaurant without paying the check, the waiter puts the arm on the American taxpayer who, once again, picks up the tab. How would you like to be in a business in which the government paid you in full for all sales and accepted the responsibility for collecting all accounts receivable? As the late General Thomas Lane noted:

In this system, the U.S. exporter has nothing to lose by sales to bad credit risks. The US commercial bank has nothing to lose. The inclination therefore under our profit system is to sell products to anyone who will sign a loan agreement which you can run by the Eximbank. Irresponsibility is rewarded ...

It is an old story. Public money is nobody's money. As a sense of civic responsibility declines, the public money is used to private advantage [often the Rockefellers].

As with other free enterprisers, we favor foreign trade. But when American exporters ask the taxpayers to take the risks while they take a guaranteed profit, it is not trade but looting. lt is as though you were an automobile dealer with an exclusive to sell Cadillacs to deadbeats in Chad, and you had a guarantee that American taxpayers would make all payments the Chads defaulted. Assuredly, you could" sell-a lot of cars that way. You could unload every Cadillac General Motors could produce! And you wouldn't care a fig whether the customer ever pays for the car.

Shortly after the May 1972 Summit Conference in Moscow, the Nixon Administration began pushing to extend the credit of the US taxpayers directly to the Soviets. As part of the Nixon-Kissinger détente, Congress was to extend to the Bolsheviks tariff status as a " Most Favored Nation,- and Eximbank loans were to be arranged for the transfer of the most advanced American technology to Russia and for the development of Soviet energy sources. A UPI release dated July 17, 1973,provides the explanation David Rockefeller gave for such outrages:

David Rockefeller, board chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank, urged Congress Tuesday to grant most favored nation trading status to the Soviet Union, claiming the move could help slow the arms race. "The desire of the Soviets to use Western trade, credits and technology to bolster their own economy hopefully could be accompanied by their giving lower priority to military programs," Rockefeller testified . . . "We haven't stopped the arms race by withholding exports (in the past)," he said.

David told an audience in Rome that he would replace the Iron Curtain with" a plate-glass curtain." He claimed -Better communication and then understanding through expanding trade are ingredients of world peace." Just a the scrap metal we sold Japan before Pearl Harbor helped bring peace!

So far, Most Favored Nation status has not bee granted by Congress because of publicity about Russia' policy of refusing emigration by Soviet Jews to Israel. But the sluice gates for loans have been opened. Already legal counselor for Eximbank, under pressure from President Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has pushed the bank's directors to approve questionable loans to the Reds.

As part of the massive effort to build the Communist economy by looting the United States, on credit, Richard Nixon appointed William Casey as president of the Export-Import Bank. Casey, a member of the Rockefeller-controlled CFR, is the perfect man for the job that Kissinger and the Rockefellers have in mind. As part of his goal of promoting" trade-with the Communists, last year he told the Society of American Business Writers:

To implement this vital aspect of our overall foreign policy, our Ambassadors to Communist nations have been instructed to put trade promotion at the top of their list of priorities. Shortly we will have doubled the number of State Department employees serving in commercial positions in the USSR, eastern Europe and [Communist] China.

Naturally the Communists are delighted to have the American super-capitalists build

factories for them as long as the American taxpayers agree to pick up the tab when he Commissars default. It is foreign aid in a big, big way!

The first of the giant projects we are inflating our currency to build on credit for our Bolshevik brothers is he Kama River factory, which is to be the largest producer of trucks in the world. But please don't mention hat trucks are the backbone of modern military operations, and that during open warfare truck factories re quickly converted to build tanks. If you do so, Liberals will look at you as if you have four heads and nine eyes.

The Kama River factory will produce 150,000 heavy rucks and 150,000 heavy engines per year. This output is greater than the combined production of such trucks by all factories in the United States. The complex is being built by a division of the Pullman Company at a cost of two million dollars. The Soviets are going to put up ten % of the cash for the project, while David Rockefeller's Chase Manhattan Bank and the Export-Import Bank will each advance forty-five %.

To say that Eximbank is bending over backwards with our tax dollars to accommodate the Soviets is like saying hat J. Paul Getty is fairly confident his personal cheque won't bounce. On Exim's usual loans, repayments must tart in three to five or, at the most, seven years. The repayment period for this loan is twelve years, with a race period of 4.5 years. Which means that it will be 16.5 ears, if ever, before anyone sees the first payment! Try to get that kind of a deal as an American businessman ... at six % interest.

And what happens when the Comrades don't pay? Do we foreclose and repossess the factory? That's about as practical as growing bananas in Minnesota. Krupp, the German industrial giant, almost collapsed as a result of its extension of credit to the Soviets. It had to be bailed out by its government.

But, you say, surely David Rockefeller, the shrewdest and most powerful banker in the world, would not risk Chase Manhattan's money unless he were sure of repay merit. You're right. David is sure of repayment. Chase's loan is guaranteed by the US taxpayer through other government agencies, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and the Foreign Credit Insurance Association. The US taxpayer is on the hook for every dime. just as with the Eximbank loans, OPIC and FCIA guarantee the -businessmen- a profit no matter how badly the deal turns out. What is happening is that we are giving the Soviets a two-billion-dollar truck plant, and insuring the Rockefellers' cut on the deal.

The Kama River project kicked off a spree of such looting. One of these loans is for thirty-six million dollars to help construct and equip an international trade center in Moscow. Joint venturing in this deal-all fully guaranteed by you, the taxpayer-are Chase Manhattan and the Bank ,,of America. Arranged by Armand Hammer of Occidental Petroleum, a personal friend of Lenin and son of a founder of the US Communist Party, the huge Trade Center will be built by the Bechtel Corporation. Comrade Hammer and his Occidental Petroleum also have a huge natural gas deal in the mill with the Soviets. According to former Eximbank boss Henry Kearns:

For a proposed gas development deal in Siberia that the Soviets are eager to make, the required Eximbank credit is $1.5 billion - more than the bank has- granted any other customer. The Soviet Union has already received Exim credits of about $350 million without disclosing financial data ...

The Nixon-Kissinger Administration had to pour millions in paper currency into our economy, thus pushing inflation higher, to lend the Soviet Union $180 million at six % interest. The deal is for the construction on a Soviet site of a new fertilizer plant made in the USA This, incidentally, comes at a time when America is in the midst of a severe fertilizer shortage. Crops are being limited in our own country because of that shortage, but our government is determined to help the Comrades at our expense, by looting us of the hardware to build this desperately needed fertilizer plant,

The cost of the Russian fertilizer plant will be $400 million. Of this, the Soviet Union is putting up only $40 million-a mere 10 % of the cost. All the rest will come from the US

In addition to the Export-Import Bank's loan, for which the bank has already made a preliminary commitment, private American banks will lend another $180 million for the Russian plant-but at a realistic 10 to 12 % interest. The American taxpayer is therefore subsidizing the Export-Import Bank's part of the loan-a subsidy that could cost between $50 million and $75 million in lost interest over the 12-year period of the loan.

" The Soviet Union is the last great undeveloped market for the US, " says Alfred R. Wentworth, senior vice president of Chase Manhattan Bank and head of Chase's recently opened Moscow office. " It now is opening up, and our bank wants to participate in the many opportunities being created.-

To be sure no one misunderstands, Chase Manhattan Bank has been running advertisements in major newspapers across the country. They read:" Now you can get banking insights on developing business relationships in the Soviet Union direct from our Moscow office ... In addition to our Moscow office, we have another in Vienna for dealings in Eastern Europe ... Our Moscow representatives can be contacted at:

Metropol Hotel, 1 Karl Marx Square, Room 227, MOSCOW, USSR.

Tel: 225-6277.

From 1 Chase Manhattan Plaza to 1 Karl Marx Square, we are international money experts with a knack for making good sense out of confusing East-West trade talk."

One would expect the Rockefellers to open up shop at the most prestigious (and, as Business Week says, " symbolic") address in town. As Newsweek magazine headlined its report: The Kremlin now has a - Comrade at Chase.-

So has Peking. After David and Nelson Rockefeller called for the - " normalizing of relations " and establishing " trade-with Mao Tse-tung and the Red Chinese", Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger reversed the Republican platform and a hundred Nixon promises to follow that line also. The door was opened for trade with the butchers of Red China.

While Mr. Nixon's sudden cozying up to the Peking mob received reams of comment and publicity, there is one aspect of all this which has attracted virtually no attention. lt is the fact that large oil deposits have been found near the Senkaka Islands in the East China Sea.

Our Insider - arranged deals with Red China are cut from the same cloth as our" trade-with the Soviet bloc; we have made numerous concessions and have asked none in return. Perhaps one of the concessions" we-will receive will be drilling rights for Standard Oil. After all, David Rockefeller has been promoting an opening with Red China for the past five years. Yes, the plot thickens. And in this case oil is thicker than blood.

"I'm very encouraged,- said David Rockefeller in July 1973." In every case we've been invited by the socialist governments and have been warmly and generously received even though I head a large capitalist bank and my name is closely identified with capitalism.-

David was so impressed with the glories of Mao land that he wrote a puff piece for the New York Times of August 10,1973, entitled " From A China Traveler." The chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations observed:

One is impressed immediately by the sense of national harmony ... 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 purpose ... The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.

Batten, Barton, Dursten & Osborne couldn't have written better ad copy to puff the " social. experiment which has killed some sixty-four million of its own people and keeps millions more in the slavery of labor camps.

" And you must remember," says David Rockefeller,

" the Chinese are not only purposeful and intelligent, they also have a large pool of cheap labor. So they should be able to find ways to get trading capital." If wages are low behind the Iron Curtain in Europe, imagine how attractive they are in Red China. Such things are not missed by David Rockefeller.

What does the building of the Big Red Machine in the Soviet Union and Red China mean? Constructing some of the world's largest factories for the Soviet Union, and shipping the Communists the most sophisticated US technology and equipment, has a multitude of implications. Professor Antony Sutton, the world's foremost expert on the use of Western technology to develop the Soviet Union, has written an entire book on this subject under the provocative but very deliberate title, National Suicide.

The military potential of the industrial plants which we are building for the Soviets should be obvious to anyone. Trucks, aircraft, oil, steel, petro-chemicals, aluminum, computers-these are the very sinews of a military industrial complex. These factories, the product of American genius and financed by American capital, could have been built in the United States. Instead, they are constructed at the US taxpayers' expense in the Soviet Union-a nation whose masters still keep millions in concentration camps and who have sworn to bury us.

And the program to loot America to build the Soviet Union is escalating. Remember that the factories we are constructing for the Communists represent the latest in American technology. This technology is unobtainable anywhere else in the world.

Another important thing to remember is the strong possibility that Russian factories using American capital and American technology will, with Soviet slave labor, produce goods which will undersell those produced by American labor in world markets. Just as many thousands of Americans have already lost their jobs to foreign labor (working in European and Asian factories constructed with American foreign aid) still more American workers will see their jobs destroyed by their own government. And these runaway -capitalists- are well aware of the cost benefits of such slave labor.

But as important as jobs are, there is even a more important aspect to the on-going -partnership- between the Rockefellers and the Communists which has been operating for over fifty years. At stake is the very survival of independence and liberty in this country.

Professor Sutton has assembled an abundance of evidence which nobody has even attempted to refute. First, he has shown that Communism is a stagnant system incapable of innovation or high productivity. Its survival, even at a subsistence level for its captives, has required regular transfusions of capital and technology. Without aid from the West, the Soviet Union would have long since collapsed. But without the Soviet Union, the Rockefellers and other super-rich would not have had an " enemy-to justify their schemes for monopoly World Government.

The Soviet Union was first saved by Herbert Hoover with food. Next, came Lenin's New Economic Plan which let the super-capitalists back into Russia. This was followed by FDR's diplomatic recognition of Russia (long advocated by the Rockefellers), which allowed the Soviets to obtain desperately needed credits. World War II turned on the $11 billion Lend-Lease spigot. Following the war. Russia was allowed to denude much of Germany of factories and scientists. During the Kennedy Administration. We started, providing wheat for hungry Soviet factory workers. During the Vietnam War, America shipped vital supplies to the East European bloc, which was providing North Vietnam with the war equipment to kill our own soldiers. Now we are supplying the world's largest truck factory, extremely sophisticated computers and a cornucopia of other manufacturing technology. To cap the climax, the Wall Street journal of April 25, 1975, headlines " US Quietly Allows Uranium Shipments to Soviet Union For Processing Into Fuel." Is that unbelievable?

Where was the public outrage that the mediacracy is capable of creating?*

As former Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal observed:

"Consistency never has been a mark of stupidity. If the diplomats who have mishandled our relations with Russia were merely stupid, they would occasionally make a mistake in our favor." In short, what is happening is not just the looting of our economy, but treason. There is something rotten, but it's not in Denmark, it is in Manhattan.

The game plan is simple: We are going to be blackmailed into surrendering or merging with the Soviets. Meanwhile, our Congress wants to stop weapons development so that we can have more welfare programs. Since most of the military budget goes to salaries which cannot be cut, any slashing of " fat" usually means that real muscle-weapons systems-has been amputated.

For five decades the Communists' propaganda line has been that they were going to destroy the Rockefellers and the other super-rich. Yet the Rockefellers have been breast feeding the Bolshevik monster since its childhood. Today they are leading the parade to provide their Soviet Frankenstein with a high-protein diet. We are supposed to believe those international cartelists do this because they are foolish or greedy. Of course the Rockefellers are greedy for the profits produced by their alliance with the Soviet Union, but that cannot be the total answer. Lenin claimed that capitalists would sell the Communists the rope with which they would be hung, if it could be done for a profit. The Rockefellers know that. And now they are building them factories in the Soviet Union.

* A group of concerned Americans arranged for Sutton, who has testified numerous times before Congressional Committees, to present these facts before the COP Platform Committee in Miami in 1972. The committee did not show up to hear Sutton's testimony and a scheduled news conference was canceled. A newsman told Sutton that his story was" too hot- for the newspapers to deal with. When Sutton returned to Hoover, he was ordered by his superiors to make no more public statements during the campaign. Somebody important had obviously made a phone call. Later, Sutton's contract at Hoover was not renewed. He obviously was stepping on too many tender toes.

But the Rockefellers are not fools. They are brilliant, far-sighted plotters who became immensely powerful by devious Machiavellian planning, and by infiltrating, subsidizing and controlling their opposition.

Plain old-fashioned common sense insists that the Rockefellers know something about Communism that we do not. Since they subsidize it and do not fear it, logic tells us they are either partners with the Communist hierarchy - or they control it.

But if this is true, how do the Rockefellers keep their partners from taking the gun and turning it against their secret backers? We do not pretend to know that answer. There has to be a control mechanism. The Rockefellers would not be so foolish as to let a competitor put a pistol to their heads-let alone provide the pistol. So we must conclude once again that the Rockefellers know something that we do not. Certainly this ultimate secret is known only to the top handful of the conspirators. No researcher is going to learn the answer by pouring over the New York Times at his local library.

Because we cannot identify the control mechanism, or describe how it works, many will ridicule our thesis. But, how do they explain the fifty-year Rockefeller program to build the power of Communism? Since the days of John D. Sr., the Rockefellers have prided themselves on their intelligence-gathering capabilities. They know more about their competitor opponents than those competitors know about themselves. You can bet your bippy that the Rockefellers are not naive about the Communists.

But let us assume that they are. Let us assume that in the end the Rockefellers will be the major victims of the Communist empire they have played such an important role in creating. Assume that it has all been done out of sheer stupidity and greed. Where does that put us? Right in the Gulag Archipelago along side them, that's where it puts

Either way you lose. The Big Red Machine may or may not devour the Rockefellers. We are convinced it will not, because we believe the Rockefellers and their allies control the comrades who control the guns. But the question is rather academic, because the whole purpose of the Big Red Machine is to swallow us! And unless some big changes are made mighty quickly, that's exactly what it will do.

Back to table of contents

Chapter Ten

The People Planners

``It is Kissinger's belief ... that by controlling food, one can control people, and by controlling energy, especially oil, one can control nations and their financial systems. By placing food and oil under international control along with the world's monetary system, Kissinger is convinced a loosely knit world government can become a reality by 1980.''

-Paul Scott
nationally syndicated columnist

The Rockefellers learned nearly a century ago that there are two standard ways for one of their companies to absorb another corporation. If the firm to be acquired is much smaller, a "take over" is the simplest procedure: buy em out.

But if the competitor is more your equal, a merger- "must be arranged".

The same principles hold true among nations. No matter how much this country sends abroad as foreign aid, technical assistance, loans that are never repaid, or other largesse, there is simply no way another country -or even a bloc of countries- can be made powerful enough to take us over.

Recognizing this political fact of life, the master planners devised the strategy of a merger - a Great Merger - among nations.

But before such a merger can be consummated, and the United States becomes just another province in a New World Order, there must at least be the semblance of parity among the senior partners in the deal - How does one make the nations of the world more nearly equal? The Insiders determined that a two-prong approach was needed, use American money and know-how to build up your competitors, while at the same time use every devious strategy you can devise to weaken and impoverish this country. The goal is not to bankrupt the United States, we must emphasize. Rather, it is to reduce our productive might, and therefore our standard of living, to the meager subsistence level of the socialized nations of the world.

Only a fascist-socialist dictatorship would have the power to accomplish such a - redistribution.- Notice that the plan is notto bring the standard of living in less developed countries up to our level, but to bring ours down to meet theirs coming up.

You may be assured, however, that the Rockefellers and their allies are not talking about reducing their own quality of life. It is your standard of living which must be sacrificed on the altar of the New World Order.

The Rockefeller game plan is to use population, energy, food, and financial controls as a method of people control which will lead, steadily and deliberately, into the Great Merger. Much of the spade work for setting up this ploy is being done by Henry Kissinger, who was a personal employee of Nelson Rockefeller for a decade before Rocky placed him in the Nixon Administration. On numerous occasions Herr Kissinger has declared that his goal is to create a "New World Order." Syndicated Washington columnist Paul Scott reveals:

It is Kissinger's belief, according to his aides, that by controlling food, one can control people, and by controlling energy, especially oil, one can control nations and their -financial systems. By placing food and oil under international control along with the world's monetary system, Kissinger is convinced a loosely knit world government operating, under the frame-work of the United Nations can become a reality before 1980.

Common sense tells us that a Rockefeller hireling such as Kissinger would not be setting up an "international control" system which takes assets from the Rockefellers and gives them to someone else. Obviously, the game plan is to take other people's assets and put them under the umbrella of a Rockefeller-controlled World Government.

This new strategy may be termed the crisis route to World Order. It runs parallel to and eventually will converge with the Atlantic Union treaty and regional government approach to the Universal State. Washington columnist Paul Scott calls this "the new strategy change from the direct to the indirect approach to bring about world government. "The plan, as publicly stated by the CFR's Richard Gardner, part-time State Department functionary and Columbia University Professor of Law and International Organization, amounts to this: Instead of trying to make the UN a complete world dictatorship immediately, the Establishment will identify different problems in different countries. Then they will propose a "solution," which can only be achieved by some kind of international agency, so that each country concerned will be forced to surrender another segment of its national independence. Gardner considers this piecemeal approach the practical road to the end of nationhood:

We are likely to do better by building our "house of world order - from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great - booming, buzzing confusion " to use William James' facetious description of reality; but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, is likely to get us to world order faster than the old-fashioned frontal assault.

So this is what the Rockefeller gang, working through agents like Kissinger and Gardner, have in mind-an "end run around national sovereignty." Gardner continues, with obvious glee:

The hopeful aspect of the present situation is that even as nations resist appeals for " world government- and "the surrender of sovereignty," technological, economic and political interests are forcing them to establish more and more far-ranging institutions to manage their mutual interdependence.

One of the most obvious back-door approaches to World Order is through the control of food. The ploy is to establish a World Food Bank, with the necessary goodies supplied (naturally) by the United States. The concept was proposed at the International Monetary Fund Conference in Nairobi by long-time Rockefeller front man Robert 5. McNamara (CFR). R. Strange McNamara (yes, that really is his middle name) was made president of the World Bank after he had successfully completed his earlier assignment of crippling this country's military might. McNamara advocated the food-producing nations of the world surrender their surpluses to a " world authority," which would then take charge of redistributing the bounty to the 'have-not" nations. The topic was to be discussed at the UN's World Food Conference in Rome in November 1974. Between the time of the original proposal and the Rome conference, Richard Nixon was shuffled into an early retirement and was replaced by a compliant Jerry Ford.

One of Ford's first official acts was to go before the UN General Assembly and assure the international flotsam gathered there that the voice of the Rockefeller's Charlie McCarthy, Henry Kissinger, was the very voice of America in all matters pertaining to international relations. Later, Ford announced that the Secretary of State would appear as keynote speaker on behalf of the United States at the upcoming World Food Conference, superseding the more logical choice, Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz, who was the official head of the US delegation. Of the hundreds of political commentators around the country, only Paul Scott had the courage to assess the implications of Ford's actions:

Whether he fully realizes it or not, President Ford has put his stamp of approval on Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's grand design foreign policy for the establishment of a loosely knit world government before the end of the 1970s.

By calling for the development of a global strategy and policy for food and oil within the structure of the United Nations, the President clearly signaled his acceptance of the "new international order" being sought by Kissinger.

Scott went on to point out that instead of using this nation's enormous food production as a weapon of US foreign policy, to promote the expansion of freedom throughout the world, Ford accepted Kissinger's plan of passing policy control over US food surpluses, "and eventually all US food " to a national food bank.

Herr Henry made no bones about the fact that all of this is designed to further the New World Order. He told the delegates at Rome: "Weare faced not just with the problem of food but with the accelerating momentum of our interdependence." And "our-man in Rome went even further; he declared we should" make global cooperation in food a model, for our response to other challenges of an interdependent world - energy, inflation, population, protection of the environment.

Agriculture Secretary Earl Butz admitted of the proposed food bank that "in the end it will be the American taxpayer who pays for it." Who else? And the fact that worldwide distribution of our food will inevitably create food shortages and skyrocketing prices in America has not been overlooked by the Rockefeller conspirators. That is part of the plan.

And before you conclude that any such program would be emphatically rejected by an angry American electorate, remember this: by the time the plan is implemented, the UN will have an army to back up its looting of America! Doubtless the clan's minions in the bureaucracy and the media will refer to the planned food shortage as a mandatory national diet program.

The whole thrust of the Rome gathering was that it is the obligation of the United States-which means you, the worker and taxpayer -to feed the world. This, despite the fact that for years America has supplied more than 80 % of the food given to foreign countries. It is such American giveaways that in recent years have provided over $25 billion in foodstuffs to such ingrates as Marxist India, now a dictatorship openly allied with the Soviet Union, where the bulk of our grains winds up feeding rats, not hungry people.

* While US reserves of food and feed grains are already being depleted, Russia and Communist China have quietly been using part of their massive purchases of bargain-priced American grain to build up their stockpiles. Crews of US and foreign ships carrying US grain to Russian and Chinese ports have been told by Communist dock workers that every third or fourth shipment of US grain is being placed in permanent storage facilities as part of those countries' national reserves.

At least $200 billion in such aid has been similarly squandered to more than 125 nations-including more millions now going to members of the OPEC cartel, which has quadrupled oil prices. To pay for all of these giveaways, the Insiders who run the show have used printing press inflation money to add hundreds of billions of dollars to our National Debt. This, coupled with the consequent reduction of domestic supplies, has sent our own food prices out of sight. -

But, at least in the past our stupidity was of our own doing and under our own control. Informed Americans could have stopped it-and could still stop it today-by throwing the Congressmen who voted for the giveaways out of office. In the future, when the Rockefeller Kissinger plan for the international authority over food is implemented, our food supply will no longer be under our control. What then?

Increasingly we hear plaintive bleats from the Rockefellers' sheep in the media, calling for Americans to make increased sacrifices to feed the rest of the world. Incredible as it may seem, the truth-twisters of the airwaves and press are attempting to make us feel guilty that we are not starving.

None of these Rockefeller lackeys dares suggest, of course, that the difference between American agricultural production and the poverty levels of the so-called -have not- nations is the difference between individualism, with its reliance on private property and free enterprise, and feudalism-fascism-socialism-collectivism. It is the difference between incentives and a planned economy; between efficiency and wasteful boondoggles; between a million salesmen pushing the "too much - and a million ration clerks dividing up the "too little."

This is not to say America's agricultural system is perfect. To the extent that we have instituted price supports and subsidies, paying men not to grow food, we have suffered. Nevertheless, the success of American agriculture under freedom is a model the rest of the world should be encouraged to copy.

But if more nations achieved independence in food production, much of the impetus for world government would disappear faster than a freeloader when the check arrives. In order for the Rockefellers to achieve their New World Order, first they must create famines and the fear of further suffering. All that is required to create a famine is to put all agriculture under control of government bureaucracy, then wait awhile. The bigger the bureaucracy the shorter the wait, and international bureaucracy is the ne plus ultrain producing red tape instead of wheat.

Intertwined with food production grab is the push for population control. People planning are an important tool in building the net that will drag us fishes into the New World Order. The -population bomb- real or exaggerated, is being used in conjunction with food, energy, and international money problems as part of the One-Big-Brother snare.

Coinciding with the UN-sponsored conferences in Nairobi and Rome, the United Nations sponsored the World Population Conference at Bucharest, Romania in August 1974. Headlining the program was none other than John D. Rockefeller III, who proclaimed: " I come to Bucharest with an urgent call for a deep and probing reappraisal of all that has been done in the population field.

I have changed my mind and now believe family planning alone is not adequate. "

An Associated Press report explained: - Rockefeller ... has for years been one of the world's leading advocates of family planning. He donated millions of dollars toward population research and is founder and chairman of the Population Council, a private US organization funded largely by [millions of dollars] the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations." The wire service continued: "His speech reflected the viewpoint voiced at this conference by many members of the Third World and Socialist [that is, Communist] countries." John D. III obviously felt right at home behind the Iron Curtain, as he called for a redistribution of wealth and piously proclaimed that modern development should emphasize "inequitable distribution of the fruits of progress."

In his remarks to the gathering of people planners, the eldest of the Royal Rockefellers made three main points: First, he echoed the Communist line that the rich must give their wealth to the -poor. Second, he asserted that voluntary family planning is inadequate and called for Big Brother to start dictating whether or not a couple is permitted to have a baby. Third, in calling for -moderate levels of consumption- in advanced nations, Rockefeller advocated that Americans voluntarily reduce their standard of living.

The fact that it is a little incongruous-not to say hypocritical -for a man whose family is worth uncounted millions, who has thousands of servants, hundreds of luxurious homes and lives in an opulence unknown by the oriental potentates of yore, to ask the rest of his fellow citizens to scale down their living standards, went unnoticed in the New York Times. But to belabor the obvious, whose wealth do you think Rockefeller wants to share, yours or his?

Going along with the call by Rockefeller (who claimed the -United Nations is the world's highest authority for governmental control over people), the conference set in motion the machinery to institutionalize the totalitarian demands of the Stop the Storkers.

The Washington Post ,a chief Establishment mouthpiece, has discussed the Nazi like policies being advocated by the people planners:

The day may be approaching when couples will have to prove eligibility and demonstrate qualifications before they are permitted to become parents.

Or there may be baby ration cards for couples, group marriages, mass distribution of anti-fertility drugs, parent licensing, legal Polygamy, abortions on demand, more varied life options for women and more restricted ones for men-such as forced paternity leave for new fathers.

Understand that such enforced infertility is not planned for India or Senegal, but for the United States, where zero population growth is already a fact.

All this, despite the provable fact that there is ample room on earth for all of us-in fact if every man woman and child in the entire world moved to the State of Washington, (twentieth in size of all the states), each would have 490 square feet of space.

But we are being led to believe that unless we give Big Brother total power over people's rights to have children, we will all be ankle deep in human beings within a decade. Such august organizations as the National Academy of Sciences are helping to hawk this Rockefeller line, with doomsday messages such as:"There can be no doubt concerning the long-term prognosis. Either the birth rate of the world must come down or the death rate must go up.

This is not to discount the possibility that overpopulation, particularly in backward nations, cannot be a genuine problem. But, if the Rockefellers were truly interested in curbing population growth without enslaving everybody, there is a much better solution. When a country's standard of living goes up, the birth rate goes down-voluntarily. Assist nations such as India and Red China to benefit by the adoption of free market, private property principles, and the abundance produced by such newly free peoples would astound the world. The Rockefellers, however, are interested in more controls, not fewer problems.

The specious Rockefeller argument that the world must accept Mao-style people control or perish is so phony that it is amazing the conspirators have gotten anyone to buy it. As Reverend R. J. Rushdoony points out in his excellent book, The Myth of Overpopulation:

Socialism always creates ultimately an imbalance between the number of people living and their food supply, which results in hunger or famine. There is in this sense therefore always a problem of overpopulation under socialism. Socialism, moreover, affects both the food supplies, by limiting it, and also the population, by both expanding it at one stage and limiting it at another.

To the Rockefellers, socialism is not a system for redistributing wealth - especially not for redistributing their wealth -but a system to control people and competitors. Socialism puts power in the hands of the government. And since the Rockefellers control the government, government control means Rockefeller control. You may not have known this, but you can be sure they do!

When the Rockefellers join the UN's World Population Conference in calling for the promotion " of a new economic order by eradicating the cause of world poverty, by ensuring the equitable distribution of the world resources, by eliminating the injustices of existing world trade systems and exploitation perpetrated by capitalistic ... corporations, - something smells as fishy as an unwashed tuna boat.

Curbing population growth is just part of the Rockefeller war on the American family. Abortion is another. According to John H. Knowles, president of the Rockefeller Foundation and one of America's foremost promoters of the slaughter of the unborn, the goal of the Foundation is to achieve the capacity in America for 1.8 million abortions every year.

Not coincidentally, it was John D. Rockefeller III who was appointed by Richard Nixon as chairman of the newly created Commission on Population Growth and the American Future. In accepting the appointment, John D Ill pontificated:

The average citizen doesn't appreciate the social and economic implications of population growth and what it does to the quality of all our lives. Rather than think of population control as a negative thing, we should see that it can be enriching.

One of the early reports of the Rockefeller Commission recommended:

... that present state laws restricting abortion be liberalized along the lines of the New York State Statute, such abortions to be performed on request by duly licensed physicians under conditions of medical safety.

And the Commisssion further suggested that -federal, state, and local governments make funds available to support abortion services in states with liberalized statutes."Rockefeller is so callous about individual beliefs that he would forcibly extract money from Catholic taxpayers, among others, to finance what their religion teaches is the murder of the unborn. Tough rocks, says the Rock: "Religious preconceptions must be overcome. "

The New York model abortion law which chairman John enthusiastically applauded was passed, of course, under the leadership of brother Nelson. During the Vice Presidential confirmation hearings Dr. Charles Rice, Professor of Law at the Notre Dame Law School, characterized Nelson as "the incarnate symbol of the anti life movement - and said that Mr. Rockefeller"is perhaps the leading proponent of permissive abortion in the United States.-

The Rockefellers have even financed the establishment of an abortion mill. In the summer of 1971, Planned Parenthood-New York City opened its first large scale abortion center -a prototype for the development of additional centers throughout the city, state, and nation. The center was originally designed to perform more than 10 000 abortions a year for an average fee of $80, with funds provided in many cases by Medicaid. The initial funds to establish the abortion mill came from a $200,000 pledge from The Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

The past three generations of Rockefellers have not been notoriously considerate of other people's feelings and beliefs. When a group of pro-life activists picketed a speech by Nelson Rockefeller in Nebraska, the loveable old politician told a 15 - year old girl: "Don't knock it [abortion], girl, you might need one someday.

In all wars this nation has fought, from the battle of Lexington in 1776 through the last fatality in Vietnam, American combat deaths totaled 668,226 men. Yet, in just the single year of 1972, 700,000 innocent babies were killed in this country, legally, before they could draw their first breath. (Current estimates are that this figure could increase to 1.6 million abortions a year.)

That is the price of the Rockefellers' promotion of easy abortion in the United States. But it is just part of the price all of us will pay (and pay, and pay), if the people planners succeed in herding all of us into their New World Order.

Yes, the Rockefellers are planners. As John D.'s aide, Fred Gates, once confessed: "In our dreams we have limitless resources and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands."Now, thanks to the taxpayers, the Rockefellers have almost limitless funds. As a result, faceless bureaucrats in Washington whom you did not hire and whom you cannot fire -now tell you how to run your business, whom you may hire, where your children will be bussed to school, what products you can purchase, and even what foods you car and cannot eat. It is only a matter of time until the dictocrats tell you how many children you are permitted to have.

There is nothing wrong with planning. The question is who is doing it. Our Founding Fathers believed people should be free to plan their own lives. The Rockefellers believe their agents in the federal government must plan your life for you. It is a simple choice: Will you run your own life, or will you be forced to obey the dictates of bureaucrats, social workers, college professors, sociologists, psychologists, and others who are fronting for the House of Rockefeller?

Nelson is very candid about it. In an October 1975 interview in Playboy magazine, Rocky admitted: "I'am a great believer in planning. Economic, social, political, military, total world planning."(Emphasis added.)

When Big Brother arrives, he may well be wearing horn-rimmed glasses.

Back to table of contents

Chapter Eleven

The Great Energy Swindle

``The craziest notion that has hit this country in a long while ... is that shortages of gas, beef and a lot of other things are bad for the American people. What America needs is more shortages''

-James Reston (CFR)
New York Times

Having set the wheels in motion for establishing international controls over food and population, the Rockefellers then made their move in the all-important energy field. As Dr. Medford Evans has noted: "Energy makes the world go'round." And he adds the obvious, but crucial fact: "Who controls what, makes the world go round controls the world." In other words, when the New World Order controls the planet's energy, the world dictatorship will be established.

Syndicated columnist Paul Scott informs us: "Once [the] concept of international policy control over food is accepted by UN members, Kissinger then plans to move to establish this same concept over oil and eventually all energy in the world.-"

You will recall that in the last chapter we quoted a report by Mr. Scott that Kissinger believes that by controlling energy, especially oil, the Insiders can control nations and their financial systems; and that such international controls of oil and monetary systems could bring about a world government within the next five years.

But according to the Rockefeller-Kissinger game plan, before oil can be internationalized, there must be a crisis which threatens to bring about a worldwide depression. Remember, " crises ... are the great federators." There can be little doubt that the current international petroleum crisis has been deliberately contrived. It was engineered from start to finish. The planning involves typical bureaucratic idiocy which may or may not have been intended to have the resuIt which it inevitably did; and to conspiratorial planning by Rockefeller agents who at all times knew exactly what they were doing.

Contrary to the incantations of the doomsayers, America is not running out of oil. As Don Oakley of the Copley News Service notes: " Forevery one of the billions upon billions of barrels of petroleum the United States has consumed since Colonel Drake drilled the first well in 1859, at least another barrel remains in the ground." According to John Knight, editorial Chairman of the Knight newspapers: "A figure of 100 billion barrels [of oil reserves] is offered as conservative, although some studies place the figure at several hundred billion barrels excluding shale oil.-

Get that? We are sitting on several hundred billion barrels excluding shale. Yet even today the United States consumes only about six billion barrels of oil a year.

Shale oil is-oil locked up in porous rock. The Interior Department estimates our"easily-recoverable shale oil at eighty billion barrels, and shale oil recoverable with intensive technology at six hundred billion barrels. The six hundred billion barrels that appear to be recoverable are enough to last one hundred years at the present rate of consumption. However, most US shale resources are on federal lands in Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah. None is yet being produced commercially because the federal government has been very slow - some say suspiciously slow -to permit development of this crucial resource.

We are literally surrounded by oil. U, S. News & World Report stated as far back as November 22, 1971 that our total offshore oil reserves amount to approximately 780 billion barrels. This does not, of course, include the estimated twenty billion barrels of oil in Alaska. Counting only the offshore oil, the Alaskan reserves and the easily recovered shale oil, the United States has 880 billion barrels of oil reserves. At the current rate of consumption, my calculator says that this is enough oil to last beyond the year 2121. That is a lot longer than any of us is going to last. Surely we can produce alternative forms of power and energy in that amount of time!

Why is it, asks economist Tom Rose, that after over three hundred years of continuous material progress in America, without fuel shortages, we should suddenly stumble upon an energy crisis in 1973 ? If America has abundant fuel supplies, why aren't they abundantly available? Could it be, asks Professor Rose, that the historical process by which these supplies have been made available has changed? He observes:

Historically, energy in America has been supplied by profit-seeking private entrepreneurs and profit-oriented corporations. These risk-takers have invested millions and millions of dollars every year in their long-range plans to supply the ever-growing energy needs of the American people. Historically, they have adjusted their production plans to price signals received through the competitive marketplace. For over three centuries this free market process has been eminently successful. And competing sources of energy have always been in abundant supply at reasonable prices.

In recent decades, however, the bureaucrats and the politicians have thrust themselves into the market process. As Professor Rose notes, "during the last two or three decades-especially since 1955 when the FPC (Federal Power Commission) started controlling the wellahead price of gas and oil-energy suppliers have faced non-market signals ... Neither the Mideast war nor American prosperity has caused our present energy crisis. It was caused by political meddling.-"

That last point is so crucial to understanding the mess we are in that we want to repeat it. Fuelish, oil-consuming Americans didn't cause the energy crisis. The Mideast war didn't cause it. Our growing prosperity didn't cause it. Political meddling (by some of the brightest -planners around, we might add) did.

Have you heard the Rockefellers, Standard Oil execs, or even other petroleum countries screaming bloody murder about the fact that a bunch of paper-shuffling bureaucrats have so distorted the realities of supply and demand that we now face a worldwide crisis? Yes, Mobil has run a few ads hinting at this. But, if the Rockefellers really wanted to demonstrate what a palpable fraud the energy crisis really is, they would be showing 60-minute documentary specials on ABC, NBC and CBS. Instead, these networks have produced a spate of specials to bamboozle the public into believing we are down to our last gallon of Exxon.

One of the major excuses for the massive interference by government in the development and marketing of energy resources has been the ecology movement. The "crisis" used to strangle development of offshore oil began with the Santa Barbara oil spill in 1969. The "Liberal" media heralded the Santa Barbara spill as a greater disaster than the bubonic plague. Television newswatchers were treated every night to heart-rending closeups of gooey gulls covered with crude oil.

A study of the Santa Barbara spill was subsequently undertaken by forty leading scientists under the direction of Dr. Dale Straughan, a marine biologist from the University of Southern California. This $250,000 study produced a 900 page report which declared: "Not only had overall damage by the spill been greatly overestimated, but where damage had been done, nature had returned it to normal."

The conclusions of Dr. Straughan and her team became one of the biggest secrets since the whereabouts of judge Crater. The Brinkleys, Cronkites, and others who had made a national horror story of the unfortunate spill were so busy beating the drums to stop all offshore drilling that they didn't have time to cover the less dramatic, truthful story of what really happened in Santa Barbara. They were too preoccupied with promoting a shortage - producing power grab by government to report that out of approximately fourteen thousand offshore wells which

have been drilled, there have been a grand total of three - yes, three-serious oils pills.

The phony propaganda about the Santa Barbara spill was the excuse used by the Nixon Administration to cancelleases and strangle offshore oil and gas drilling, not only in Santa Barbara Channel, but around the nation. Just as it had done time and time again, the Administration surrendered to the cries of the mob and kept silent about the known facts. While consumption of petroleum and gas was jumping every year, the Nixon poohbahs put the lid on expansion of supply. Anybody who has plodded his way through elementary economics knows that if demand increases while supplies and prices remain the same, the inevitable resuIt will be a shortage. The masters of Nixonomics knew what they were doing, and they did it anyway.

But stopping further offshore drilling was not the only plus from the Santa Barbara oil spill for the creators of our shortages. In the wake of this "ecological disaster," Senator Henry Jackson of Washington was able to put through his oft-defeated bill to establish a national policy on environmental protection and to create the Council on Environmental Quality. The law seemed innocent enough at first glance. But, as Dan Smoot relates in: The Business End of Government

. . it was a sleeper, as activist attorneys exultantly called it after it was safely on the statute books. This legislation provided the activists with legal standing to make court attacks against major business activities throughout the United States ....

The environmental l - policy law left the definition of environment so vague and open-ended that it gave federal courts almost limitless power to veto the actions of executive agencies and the laws of Congress. No business can initiate a major activity without first dealing with a government agency of some kind-about permits, licenses, rights-of-way leases, land leases, use of public thoroughfares, and so on. Any group of two or more people willing to post a small bond and engage an attorney can bring court action against a government agency, alleging that, in granting permission for a business activity, the agency failed to file an adequate environmental -impact statement as required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. They can demand a court injunction to haIt the business activity until the government agency files an adequate impact statement and suggests an alternative approach.

The Jackson Bill, which Richard Nixon refused to veto, was used to delay the construction of the Alaskan pipeline for an incredible five years. Under the guise of keeping the tundra virginal for the dainty hooves of caribou, the ecomaniacs tied up the pipeline project in the courts. A pipeline across the frozen tundra of central Alaska is about as conspicuous as a thread stretching from the eighth to the ninth hole of a golf course-and about as harmful to the game. But the Jackson Environment Law gave the radicals not only respectability in the courts, but a legal club that declared any developers must be assumed guilty until they proved their innocence.

Stung by public outrage, Congress finally acted to allow the contractors to begin construction of the pipeline. So after a five-year delay, we can look forward to crude pouring out the end of that pipeline sometime in 1978. But had the Nixon Administration not gone smilingly down to defeat at the hands of the ecomaniacs, Alaskan crude would now be flowing into refineries at the rate of one million barrels a day-which just happens to be almost the same amount that the US has been importing from the Middle East. Needless to say the Sierra Clubbers are about as popular in Alaska as Bobby Riggs at a baby shower for Gloria Steinem.

One of the most important moves in the effort to create artificial shortages of petroleum occurred in June 1970, when President Nixon issued an Executive Order creating the Environmental Protection Agency. A preliminary Report on the activities of the 9,000 bureaucrats in the EPA has now been issued by the House Appropriation Subcommittee. It declares:

The subcommittee is convinced that the Environmental Protection Agency has played a major role in the current energy crisis. The approval by the agency of overly restrictive state plans, which call for the meeting of primary and secondary ambient air standards at the same time, has resulted in the need for the industry to convert from coal to low sulfur fuels. This increased requirement for oil and gas has been a major contributor to our current fuel problems.

In addition, the automobile emission control standards imposed by the agency have greatly increased the requirements for gasoline, which is also in short supply and will probably require rationing.

Mr. Nixon's Environmental Protection Agency, in the name of controlling air pollution, has forced auto manufacturers to pile all kinds of gas-eating gadgets onto our motors. The net resuIt has been a drop of at least twenty % in mileage, and considering the near impossibility of keeping such engines properly tuned, the loss may be as high as fifty %.

According to Shirley Scheibla, Barron's Washington editor, the gadgets applied to our cars by the EPA now resuIting the use of 300,000 extra barrels of gasoline a day; by 1980, the controls will require the consumption of an added two million gallons of gasoline a day. Meanwhile, federally required reduction of lead in gasoline has reduced fuel efficiency by another twenty %. And, no two experts even seem to agree on whether the required gadgetry actually decreases pollution. Some think that the net effect is an increase. We don't pretend to know, but it seems to us that if our car is burning up to twice as much gasoline, the net amount of pollutants coming out the exhaust pipe has probably increased.

The ten thousand independent oil companies in the US drill 80 % of the wells. Government or "people-control of the oil industry would, in practice, mean Rockefeller control over their competitors. It would mean the death knell for the independents and create One Big Oil Company under the sway of the House of Rockefeller. Yes, competition is still a sin.

If you still have any lingering doubts about the Rockefellers promoting the energy shortage for power and profit, consider the fact they have financed their alleged enemies, the ecomaniacs.

Incredible, you say? Well, it's true. And for reasons other than the Rockefellers' love of blue sky and falling profits. The - environmental legislation - pushed through Congress was based on lobbying by innumerable "experts."Putting together these -citizens lobbies- takes lots of money; and contrary to the hokey publicity from most such groups, the dollars do not come from school children donating their milk money-or even from college students foregoing a beer. The money to fight " the entrenched interests- comes largely from those same entrenched interests, and the foundations which they have created. It represents the old ploy of Bre'r Rabbit begging Bre'r Bear not to throw him into the briar patch. Only in this case, Bre'r Rabbit is the Rockefellers and the briar patch is socialistic controls. Remember, more controls mean worse shortages; and when oil and gas are scarce, prices go right through the skylight.*

* About one-third of the cost of a gallon of gas goes to the oil company. When gasoline reaches one dollar a gallon, as most experts anticipate, Standard Oil's share will be a lot bigger than when you could filler up at 34.9c

During Congressional Hearings on the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, none other than J. C. Harrar, then president of the Rockefeller Foundation (and a CFR member, of course), advocated the United Nations developing an international program for dealing with worldwide pollution. Other lobbyists who joined the clamor for more government controls were financed by he Ford Foundation, which is more closely interlocked with the Rockefellers than two teenagers in the last row of drive-in movie. Edward Rogers, general counsel of the Ford-backed Environmental Defense Fund, actually advocated international control of automobiles.

The testimony at such hearings and the lists of those presenting it are monotonously repetitious. In one way or another all those appearing favored an increase in federal control over the "environment" - which boils down to federal controls over almost everything and everybody, Some witnesses, less sophisticated than their mentors, boldly called for the destruction of the capitalist system; others suggested that -regional- or -international planning agencies are needed to cope with pollution.

The loud - mouth Marxists have relatively little impact on Congress, of course. It is the corporate socialists in the Brooks Brothers suits who are really dangerous. They bring with them the credibility, prestige and financial backing of the Rockefeller complex, and you can be - sure Congress listens to them very closely.

Although it seems to have been around forever, the environmental movement appeared on the national scene almost overnight. Five years ago, not one person in a thousand had even heard the word ecology. But suddenly all of - us were supposed to panic at the thought of the slimy hand of pollution suffocating us as we sleep.

The major bankrollers of this -spontaneous- movement were the numerous Rockefeller foundations, the Rockefeller-controlled Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller controlled Carnegie Foundation and the Rockefeller interlocked Mellon (Gulf Oil) foundations. Among the most vigorous public advocates were Roberto Anderson of Atlantic Richfield (and the CFR) and Henry Ford II of the Ford Motor Company (and the CFR).

The number one piggy bank for the -ecology movement has been the Ford Foundation, almost all of whose trustees are members of the Rockefellers' CFR. It has poured millions of dollars into hustling population planning and environmental controls of every sort.

The Ford Foundation gave $2 million to the Energy Policy Project to aid it in the creation of a federal energy policy. For that sum of money, it expected results, and it got them. Ford also gave $309,000 to the Center for Law in the Public Interest and $162,000 to the Royal Institute of International Affairs (the English counterpart of our CFR) to study the role of oil companies in the energy market!

The most effective organization in using law suits to force Zero Economic Growth on the country-by blocking construction of refineries, airports, shopping centers, housing and every other form of development-is the Sierra Club. The Sierra Club was for many years a respected group honestly promoting conservation and preservation of forests and wildlife, until it was taken over by political radicals. Now, using the Environmental Protection Act, it has used the courts to throw hundreds of thousands of workers out of jobs.

The Sierra Club is the very symbol of the ecology movement's fight against the"big corporations". Supplying the funds for its allegedly humanitarian crusade is you guessed if ! -the Ford Foundation. Ford made grants to the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund of $98,000 in 1971 and $143,000 in 1972, and the Rockefellers have also donated to the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund.

Next to the Ford Foundation, the leading founders of the ecology movement are the various Rockefeller foundations. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Rockefeller Family Fund are all contributing heavily to the environmental revolution from which Standard Oil is profiting so handsomely by driving petroleum prices into orbit.

We realize that this sounds like something out of Ripley's -Believe It or Not." But here are the facts:

In 1969, the Rockefeller Foundation donated $250,000 to the Academy of National Sciences; $200,000 to the American Conservation Association; $60,000 to the National Audubon Society; and, $25,000 to the Conservation Fund.

In 1970, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund gave $500,000 to the Population Council. The Rockefeller Foundation gave ecology grants of $10,000 to the New School for Social Research, and $ 10 000 to the Population Reference Bureau.

In 1971, the Rockefeller Foundation gave $300,000 to Citizens for a Quieter City; $23,200 to Columbia University Center for Policy Research; $500,000 to the Conservation Foundation; $152,000 to the Environmental Law institute; $50,000 in ecology funds to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and, $1,000,000 to the Population Council,

In 1972, the Rockefeller Family Fund gave $10,000 to the National Resources Defense Council; and two grants, one for $17,750 and one for $25,000, to the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund. The Rockefeller Foundation donated $25,000 to M.I.T. for environmental studies, and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund donated $ 5oo,ooo to the American Conservation Association.

And, in 1973, the Rockefeller Foundation gave $500,000 to the Population Council and $25,000 to the Population Crisis Committee. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund donated $250,000 to the Population Council, $10,000 to the Population Council, and $25,000 to the Population Institute.

It should be mentioned that it is illegal for foundations to finance political activities. If the law were - enforced, these foundations would lose their tax exemption. But don't hold your breath until this happens. The IRS's sauce for your goose is not sauce for the Rockefellers' gander.

Typical of the bilge pumped out by the organizations bankrolled by the Rockefellers is this Los Angeles Times report of August 27,1975:

Americans will have to eat less, switch from cars to bicycles and adopt other belt-tightening measures in the next decade because the energy shortage is here to stay, according to a paper published by the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies. The paper's author, Abraham M. Sirkin, a former member of the State Department's policy and planning staff, predicts the cutbacks will produce a generation of healthier Americans.

The Aspen Institute, we hope you will not be surprised to learn, is funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

The Rockefellers are not the only oil interests helping to finance the ostensibly anti-oil ecology movement. Major donors have been Gulf Oil Foundation, the Humble Companies Charitable Trust, the Mobil Foundation and the Union Oil of California Foundation. All, of course, are either Rockefeller-controlled or interlocked with the Rockefellers through the CFR. These groups in essence paid for the legislation which has killed the mileage obtained by automobiles. But, the ultimate stakes are much bigger - using the continued energy crisis as the rationale for the creation of the New World Order.

Ralph Nader, the man who once told an audience that what we need is "somekind of communism" is also bankrolled by the Rockefeller network in his attempt to destroy the free enterprise system. Among the groups financing the Caped Crusader are the ubiquitous Ford Foundation and the Field Foundation, both CFR interlocked. Nader is not really fighting the Establishment. He works for it. According to a Business Week article reprinted in the Congressional Record of March 10, 1971, John D. Rockefeller IV is even an advisor to Nader.

Naturally, the shortages of petroleum which have been artificially created in the US has made us dependent on foreign oil. In order to calm an angry public, there has been much talk of taking off the political restrictions and achieving " energy independence". It is strictly a smokescreen. While talking independence, the Rockefeller conspirators are planning to keep us dependent on foreign oil. After all, they own or market most of that foreign oil.

In the Wall Street Journal for March 6, 1974, Henry Kissinger admitted the talk about "energy independence was a fraud. Project Independence is merely "away station on the road to a new Project Inter-dependence and at the World Energy Conference in Detroit during September 1974, President Ford, speaking without any detectable ventriloquist's strings, declared:" I call on all of you to respond to the challenge and to propose to the world your recommendations for a global energy strategy. Whether you call it Project Interdependence, or some other name, is not the essential point." It is the -interdependence- which is essential. The created crises in energy, food, and population are straw men, set up by the Insiders so they can be knocked down -and a "New World Order- can be established. Yes, crises are the great federator.

Kissinger's plan to maneuver international policy control over oil is beginning to emerge, and, as Paul Scott notes, it "is one of the most intriguing stories of our times."

According to Paul Scott, officials at the World Bank have estimated that the flow of Western dollars to oil producers in the Middle East is "now running at the rate of $100 billion a year -or more than all of US investments abroad. To put it in the most stark terms, the Middle East oil producers are accumulating so much wealth from the Western industrial nations that they will be able -if current prices continue- to buy them out by 1980"

With OPEC gaining control of most of the world's oil and money, Kissinger sees a confrontation situation developing between oil producers and consumers, reports Scott, out of which will arise" the internationalization of oil production, pricing and distribution.- It would be the ultimate monopoly.

Very conceivably the Arab sheiks are being set up to trigger a war in the Middle East. Remember, Kissinger is already on record as stating that we might invade the Middle East if oil is embargoed. With the super-sophisticated military equipment we are providing the sheiks the war would be a bloody one -especially if it, like the arranged wars in Vietnam and Korea before it, is fought under the UN banner. The end result, of course, would be the -internationalization of oil.-

Again, only the naive will think that the Rockefellers are having their agent Kissinger arrange the " internationalization of oil" so that the Oilbucks can be stripped of their holdings. The prospects of such a scenario should make any independent oil developer in the world worry. Competition is still a sin, and monopoly is still the name of the Rockefeller game.

While Armegeddon is being set up in the Middle East, the Rockefellers are preparing to stick John Q. Taxpayer with the bill for the world's oil deficits. A story in the Chicago Tribune of October 2, 1974, is headlined "US To Back New Way to Foot World Oil Bills -Simon." Secretary of the Treasury William Simon, an international banker and CFR member, told leaders of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund that if " developing nations" were having difficulty paying the oil tab, they need look no farther than the American taxpayer. "If there is a clear need for additional international lending mechanisms, the United States will support their establishment," he said.

Under the Kissinger-Rockefeller plan, Americans will pay the bills in more ways than one. Without a peep of complaint from the kept press, Kissinger met with members of the International Energy Agency and agreed to share our oil with them in case the Rockefellers stage another Arab oil boycott. Unkept columnist Paul Scott reveals:

Under the oil-sharing plan worked out recently in Brussels by the US and 11 other major industrial countries, for example, domestically produced oil in the US for the first time in our history would be shared and allocated in case of another Middle East oil embargo.

Precise allocations would be worked out by a quasi independent management organization set up within the Paris - based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, an economic consultative grouping of leading non-Communist industrial nations.

Most puzzling and alarming part of this Kissinger oil plan is that it in effect puts the -triggering device- in the hands of the Middle East oil producers-thus increasing the power of their oil weapon and making it more tempting for the Arabs to use.

For control over US domestic oil to pass into the hands of an international body, all the Middle East oil producers now need do is impose their oil embargo as they did during the 1973 Arab-Israeli war.

The control over agriculture and energy as part of the Rockefeller-Kissinger strategy for looting the country is the core of the Insiders' plan to force Zero Economic Growth on the country.

Leading the call for ZEG is a group of international establishmentarians called The Club of Rome. The Club is described by author Ovid Demaris in Dirty Business as "anorganization of distinguished industrialists, bankers and scientists from twenty-five countries. "The Club was created at the Rockefeller family's private estate at Bellagio, Italy. The Club put out a report which warned that, unless the standard of living of the developed nations was severely restricted, "A rather sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity- was inevitable.

Here we have fifty key businessmen and international bankers gathering under the auspices of the Rockefeller family and coming to the conclusion that production in America should be reduced! Again, understand that it is your standard of living they are proposing to decimate, not their own.

Naturally, the controlled press did everything possible to legitimize the scare stories concocted by the Roman clubbers. For example, here is how Time magazine portrayed their predictions in a feature story on January 24, 1972:

The furnaces of Pittsburgh are cold; the assembly lines of Detroit are still. In Los Angeles, a few gaunt survivors of a plague desperately till freeway center strips, backyards and outlying fields, hoping to raise a subsistence crop. London's offices are dark, its docks deserted. In the farm lands of the Ukraine, abandoned tractors litter the fields; there is no fuel for them. The waters of the Rhine, Nile and Yellow rivers reek with pollutants.

The message from these fright peddlers appeared in a 197 page paperback which was published in eighteen editions and made available in twenty-three languages, including Serbo-Croatian, Finnish, and Thai. The Insiders who run the show know that the only way to achieve surrender by consent is to frighten Americans into supinely accepting their plans.

Before continuing, however, we feel duty bound to assure you that, despite the huzzahs from the chorus of the CFR -controlled media, the Rockefeller -sponsored study," titled The Limits To Growth,was (and is) considered absurd by informed demographers. Wilfred Beckerman, the respected professor of political economy at the University of London, went so far as to call the book " abrazen piece of impudence." (Which is the harshest language you will ever hear a proper Englishman use.)

Our only hope for survival, the ecological fright peddlers assure us, is ZPG combined with ZEG. America has already reached Zero Population Growth, but putting enough brakes on our economy to achieve Zero Economic Growth has been a hayburner of a different hue. Only direct government intervention can assure ZEG as advocated by the Club of Rome.

Clickety-clack, clickety-clack, the message is being dutifully parroted by the Establishment media as its propaganda machines grind out the doctrine of survival through a lowered standard of living. Features like "Running Out of Everything- (Newsweek) and "Time For A New Frugality- (Time) have been appearing with regularity in the slick weeklies. Much of the propaganda has been geared towards making Americans feel guilt for their prosperity and shame for their alleged greed and profligacy.

So what is the solution? There is only one way to Stop the profit system and that is by direct government intervention (which can take a wide variety of forms taxation, regulation, allocation, rationing, etc.). The two words most often used to describe such governmental actions are of course, socialism and fascism.

But, proponents of socialism within the Establishment are careful never, ever, to use the word. While outspoken radicals are less hypocritical, Liberal politicians, bureaucrats, and media managers are aware that mainstream Americans know what socialism means, and they want no part of it. So the Establishment salesmen for socialism, who for thirty years have been implementing P while the radicals talk about it, always use code words and euphemisms. Instead of calling socialism or fascism by their right names, the Establishment prefers terms like planning.

The question is: Who is going to plan your life, you or the Frankenstein monster created by the Rockefellers, called Big Brother?

If the Rockefeller - CFR clique has an official spokesman, it is James Reston, leading columnist of the New York Times whose syndicated column appears in hundreds of papers across the nation. Read Reston and you can keep up with the latest Rockefeller-Establishment line. In 1973, Reston wrote:

The craziest notion that has hit this country in a long while -and we've had quite a few nutty notions lately -is that shortages of gas, beef and a lot of other things are bad for the American people,

What America really needs is more shortages. It is not our shortages but our surpluses that are hurting us. Too much gas, too much booze, and -fire me tomorrow! - too much newsprint are our problem. . . .

Yes, you read that correctly. James Reston of the New York Times says that what we need are more shortages. Like playing for a losing football team, shortages build character. The more we are deprived, the better off we will be! Of course, the worthies who insist you must take a hacksaw to your own standard of living are themselves living very well. And they expect to continue to do so, thank you.

The whole ploy is such obvious hogwash that not even P. T. Barnum would have dared try to peddle it. Of course, times were different when he said there's a sucker born every minute. He didn't know they could be created even quicker-if the denizens of government, education, and the media were all in on the plot.

We are not running out of energy.

But if the American people swallow the phony Rockefeller - inspired and financed propaganda, the doomsday prediction of depression and famine will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we can be panicked into surrendering our freedom in the name of survival, the socialist-fascist dictatorship of the Rockefellers' New World Order will be a reality.

On to chapter twelve

Back to table of contents