MULTIPLEXACIÓN POR DIVISIÓN DE CÓDIGO (CDM)

The aftermath of World War II saw a new era that would destroy the European empires and provide further opportunities for international finance as the US filled the vacuum of the vast lands abandoned by the destitute and indebted colonial powers. Of this time Grose says of CFR influence:

Lawyers from the Wall Street firms predominated in the occupational grouping; the 55 Council officers and directors also held 74 corporate directorships. Next came professional academics, with five university presidents, including Bowman of Johns Hopkins and Harold W. Dodds of Princeton. Twelve of the leadership had served in cabinet or subcabinet positions for different administrations in the interwar and wartime years; another 30 had experience elsewhere in the federal bureaucracy, including 21 in the State Department.[73]

Money came in from the foundations to support the CFR as the primary think tank for formulating globalist US foreign policy:

Over the course of the 1950s large foundations stepped in to support and enlarge the Council as a leading force in America’s international awareness; from the Rockefeller Foundation and Carnegie Corporation came $500,000 each, topped by $1.5 million

from the new Ford Foundation in 1954.[74]

Yet, despite the wartime alliance with Stalin, the USSR had become problematic as the globalists centred around the CFR tried to formulate a new world order around the United Nations, but were rebuffed by Stalin.[75] _{This important historical factor is often overlooked by}

conservative critics of the CFR who maintain the theory that the international financiers continued to work secretly in tandem with the USSR to create a World State. Grose states of this period: ‘ In characteristic fashion, Council planners conceived a study group to

analyze the coming world order.’ What they envisaged was a joint CFR-Soviet study group to prepare proposals for the ‘coming world order.’ Grose writes of the Soviet response:

Percy Bidwell, director of the Council’s new Studies Program, had courteously approached the Soviet Embassy as early as January 1944 to stimulate interest in the joint project. He was received by Ambassador Andrei Gromyko, whose response would become all too familiar in the years to come. Through Gromyko the Russian word ‘nyet’ entered the English language. Without any pretense of diplomatic tact, the ambassador (soon to be foreign minister) told the men from the Council he would not permit any responsible Soviet spokesman to join in such a discussion.[76]

However, the globalists continued to hold out the prospect of Soviet accord via their usual manner;[77] _{trade and credit, something they}

continued to profit from during the whole Cold War era, while working covertly to undermine Soviet influence.[78] _{Grose quotes the Chairman}

of the CFR study group on the post-war world, William H. Schubart, whom Grose notes was a partner in the international banking firm Lazard Frères, as stating of the situation with the USSR:

‘The main thing is to be sure that we are not asking for something unreasonable’ of the Soviet Union. Specifically, he was pressing for endorsement of a $6 billion loan from the United States to finance Soviet imports for postwar reconstruction. ‘It seems reasonable to suppose that if economic and political cooperation between Russia and the United States could be developed in peace as military cooperation between the two nations has been developed in war,’ Schubart said, ‘the world might look forward to an era of relative stability and considerable prosperity.’

In other words, despite the stubborn refusal of the USSR to join in a United Nation-based ‘world order’ that would place her in a

subordinate position, the international financiers such as those represented by Schubart, saw no reason that profits could not still be had; and the situation might slowly transform the USSR into something more pliable.[79] _{The policy formulated for the US vis-à-vis the USSR}

was ‘containment,’ a word coined by diplomat and CFR member George F. Kennan.[80]

Grose is candid in describing the clandestine — conspiratorial? — manner by which the CFR influences policy:

The Council on Foreign Relations functioned at the core of the public institution-building of the early Cold War, but only behind the scenes. As a forum providing intellectual stimulation and energy, it enabled well-placed members to convey cutting-edge thinking to the public — but without portraying the Council as the font from which the ideas rose.[81]

The attitude of the globalists towards the former colonies of Europe was one of a new scramble for ‘colonies’ that was now between the USSR and the US. The US, it is evident from Grose’s comments, considered certain types of communist revolution as options for manipulation. The oligarchs rivalled the USSR as the patrons of revolution, just as they were to co-opt the New Left and other forms of socialism several decades later. Thus, it is my contention that New York and Moscow were rival centres of ‘world revolution,’ Wall Street seeking a World State revolving around the axis of money, while the USSR had since Stalin pressed the ‘revolution’ into the service of its national and pan-Slavic aims. The CFR’s War and Peace Studies group considered the manner by which the US could move into the former European colonies. While here alluding to French Indochina, the attitude applies as much to all the other European colonies in Asia and Africa:

the wartime studies was that France could never expect to return to its Southeast Asian colonies in force, and the region would necessarily become a geopolitical concern of the United States as the emerging Pacific power.[82]

Grose mentions that the leader of the communist insurgents against French rule in Indochina, Ho Chi Minh, had been met by members of the Inquiry in their capacity as President Wilson’s advisers at the Paris Peace Conference after World War I. It was here that Henry Wickham

Steed, editor of the London Times, observed first-hand the

machinations of the international bankers in trying to secure the diplomatic recognition of the Bolsheviks.[83] _{Grose writes:}

After the Korean War ended in 1953, the Council returned to a serious examination of Indochina, where France’s restored colonial regime was clashing with the guerrilla forces of a self-described Marxist revolutionary named Ho Chi Minh, whom members of the Inquiry had first encountered as one of the obscure nationality plaintiffs at the Paris Peace Conference more than three decades earlier.[84]

In November 1953 a CFR study group released its first report on Indochina stating, like the report on Bolshevik Russia decades before, that the Viet Minh rebellion did not represent a communist threat. The report stated of the rebellion against the French in Indochina:

The war was ‘far larger than anything’ the policy thinkers supposed . . . It was wrong to see Ho’s Vietminh forces as simply a forward guard of world communism; nothing in Moscow’s designs could explain the size and violence of the Vietnamese rebels. Marxism ‘has little to do with the current revolution’; rather, it was pent-up nationalism, pure and simple. With France discredited by its colonial past, the opportunity was opening for the United States to guide Ho’s revolutionaries away from their irrelevant

Marxist rhetoric.[85]

Although Grose does not suggest anything of the type, it is tempting to theorise that Ho had been spotted as far back as 1919, among other colonial revolutionists at the Paris Peace Conference, and kept in mind for future cultivation, according to the dialectical, long-range strategy of the oligarchs previously considered. That dialectical long-range strategy might not have consisted of anything more than allowing Ho to achieve power in the entirety of Vietnam over the course of pursuing several decades of what many military professionals referred to as a ‘no-win war’ in Vietnam.[86] _{Whatever the motives, the outcome was}

the elimination of France from Indochina, and despite the revolutionary rhetoric of the Viet Minh, what in recent years seems to be the inexorable entry of Vietnam into the world economy. Certainly, we have already seen that the US backed Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.[87] _{It is also interesting to speculate that at least one reason}

for the prolonged ‘no-win war’ in Vietnam was to so economically exhaust the country — North and South, as it was — that only colossal debt and servitude to international finance and the world trade system would be left as the option for rebuilding the new unified State.

Here is an example of what the New Left students marched for in Western streets, chanting ‘Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh,’ while Vietnamese peasants and American youth fought it out in the villages, jungles, and rice paddies, according to what the World Bank reports on today’s Vietnam:

. . . During this period, the World Bank Group’s relationship with Vietnam has also matured and grown considerably. The Country Partnership Strategy for FY07-FY11 supports the government’s Socio-Economic Development Plan 2006-2010, which lays out a path of transition towards a market economy with socialist orientation, with the goal of attaining middle income country

status by 2010.[88]

‘A market economy with socialist orientation’ is the dialectical synthesis that the oligarchy considers the most desirable form of economy. The World Bank states that:

Vietnam has become increasingly integrated with the world economy and has become a member of the World Trade Organization. . . . Recent growth is driven by the rising importance of the private sector. The role of the state sector in manufacturing activity has declined appreciably: from 52 percent in 1995 to under 35 percent in 2006 . . . Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) commitments almost doubled, to $20.3 billion, whereas stock market capitalization reached 43 percent of GDP by end 2007, compared to 1.5 percent two years earlier. The level of public debt, at 42 percent of GDP, is moderate and is considered to be sustainable. The indebtedness is similar to other ASEAN countries. The baseline scenario of the most recent Debt Sustainability Analysis (DSA) by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is broadly in line with the investment and growth outlook of the SEDP. It estimates public and publicly-guaranteed debt to increase from 44 percent of the GDP in 2007 to around 51 percent by 2016, and decline slightly thereafter. This increase, though significant, is still considered within manageable limits, especially since more than half of it will remain on highly concessional terms.[89]

While the World Bank overview on Vietnam is enthusiastic as to the privatisation of the economy, and the rise of the public debt to over half the GDP, it is a very graphic example of how a supposedly socialist state was quickly integrated into the world economic system, after having been devastated by decades of ‘no-win war.’ The scenario is very similar to that of South Africa, the issue of ‘apartheid’ having caught the imagination of masses of youth and ‘radical’ useful idiots

throughout the world, whose agitation from ‘below’ in tandem with Black and White communist terrorists combined with the pressure of international finance from ‘above’ brought down the state- interventionist Afrikaner economy and resulted in a privatised

economy under the ANC/Communist coalition government.[90]

McCARTHY’S THREAT TO THE GLOBALIST ESTABLISHMENT

It seems likely that Senator Joseph McCarthy woke up to the real threat to America as not being the Soviet Communists, but the globalists of the US Establishment who often operated like communists, as Quigley noted. While the popular imagination has been moulded by academe and media into thinking that McCarthy was a bullying political opportunist, who persecuted well-meaning liberal intellectuals as ‘communist spies and infiltrators,’ it was McCarthy who endured the abuse of the most powerful elements of the Establishment, headed by

international banker Senator Herbert Lehman,[91] _{and the CIA-}

connected Washington Post.

Grose writes of this period, the so-called ‘McCarthy era,’ supposedly a time of great infamy:

Concerns that seemed more pressing bore down at the turn of the 1950s. The nation was in danger of succumbing to a red-baiting frenzy, marked by the rise into the headlines of Senator Joseph R. McCarthy. Not surprisingly, the Council’s membership seemed solidly united in contempt for the Wisconsin demagogue; under his provocative rhetoric, after all, was a thinly veiled attack on the entire East Coast foreign policy establishment, whose members gathered regularly in the closed conference rooms of the Harold Pratt House.[92]

Here Grose is saying in an official CFR history that (1) the entire ‘network’ was ‘solidly united against’ McCarthy in what he at first saw

as nothing other than a fight against communism and Soviet influence; (2) that what McCarthy thought was communism and Soviet infiltration was actually the ‘entire East Coast foreign policy establishment’ centred around the CFR (i.e. Harold Pratt House, the CFR headquarters). It was McCarthy who was the beleaguered and persecuted underdog, so intensely persecuted as to die prematurely. His enemies were not a few dozen hapless Left-liberal intellectuals, but highly placed individuals patronised by international finance.[93]