ROCKEFELLER INTERNATIONALISM

[Bianca]

Peggy Dulany



The second eldest of David Rockefeller's three daughters, Peggy Dulany went through a period of rebellion in the 1970s based on her outrage at the level of poverty in Latin America that she was convinced her father had contributed to in some way. After a period in Brazil working on poverty alleviation, she was involved in similar programs in Boston and New York. Since the 1980s, however, a mellowing of Dulany's opinions has been more than apparent, as she has joined many of the organisations in which her father has played such a key role, including the CFR, the Overseas Development Council and the Rockefeller Foundation.27

In 1986, Dulany used some of her share of the Rockefeller fortune to found the Synergos Institute, an organisation devoted to enhancing the ability of philanthropic organisations to collaborate with grassroots organisations to "reduce poverty and increase equity in Africa, Asia and Latin America".28 Although this agenda is surely laudable, there are at least two reasons for caution. Firstly, there is David Rockefeller's key role in the Global Philanthropists Circle, a Synergos subsidiary—surely a case of the fox guarding the hen house, given David's own admitted role in conceiving the so-called "Washington Consensus", which is behind much of the poverty in Latin America. And secondly, Synergos's focus on enhancing the role and reach of philanthropy throughout those regions seems more a case of enhancing the role of non-state actors into a global enterprise—an explicit objective of both David and JDR3.

In other avenues, Peggy Dulany has proved that her straying from the path of Rockefeller internationalism was indeed a momentary lapse. In early 1997, Dulany participated in a "Global Governance for Sustainable Development" conference held by the Rio+5 Forum, giving a presentation on "The Role of Global Financial Institutions and Networks in Financing Sustainable Development".29 Also in 1997, she co-chaired a CFR-sponsored Independent Task Force on Promoting US Economic Relations with Africa. Among the recommendations of the task force were: endorsement of an "Africa Growth and Opportunity Act" to increase US private investment in Africa and create the groundwork for free trade agreements in the region; and for the US to pay its outstanding commitments to "the International Development Association, the African Development Bank and Fund, and the United Nations in order to carry a fair share of international cooperation in support of African development".30

In June 2003, Dulany joined the UN Secretary-General's Panel on Civil Society and UN Relationships. The aim of the panel, claims the UN, is to "review past and current practises and recommend improvements for the future in order to make the interaction between civil society and the United Nations more meaningful". The Panel's definition of "Civil Society", according to a "contextual paper" prepared by the Panel's Chairman, former Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, "encompasses a wide variety of non-state actors, including parliamentarians and the private sector" and "non-government organizations". With relations between the UN and Civil Society beginning to "show signs of strain", there was a need for "greater consistency and coherence" to be "introduced in the rules of engagement with civil society". Cardoso explicitly linked this goal to the UN's "key role" in "strengthening global governance" and "building a cosmopolitan law". Some UN member states were wary of increased NGO participation in such avenues, Cardoso noted, but the proper response was to undermine those objections to "reduce distrust, demonstrate the effectiveness of collaboration and build consensus…"31 The aim of the Panel is not to exclude NGOs from decision-making processes, but to formalise and entrench their presence within the UN system, giving them an enduring role in building effective structures of global governance. Peggy Dulany's participation on the Panel is unlikely to result in any deviation from this goal.

[Bianca]

David Rockefeller, Jr




The eldest of David Rockefeller's children, David Junior has also succeeded his father by taking up senior positions in a variety of foundations and policy-planning organisations. He is a trustee and former Chairman of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Asian Cultural Council, an honorary trustee of the Brookings Institution, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and a former President of the Rockefeller Family Fund. He has also been involved in a number of environmental organisations, including as a member of the Pew Oceans Commission, a trustee of the National Park Foundation and founder of the Alaska Fund for the Future. David Junior's main business role has been as Director and former Chairman of Rockefeller & Co., Inc.

David Junior's take on the world is little known, save for only a few snippets. In a speech on the relationship between business and the arts in 1997, for example, he observed that: "The Internet has fulfilled the prophecy of a global village. I do not believe that big corporations can finesse their responsibility to define and support the particular communities in which they operate most actively." The answer to this dilemma, he opined, was "the arts because they simultaneously embrace the particular and the universal, [and] can best help us to grasp this world full of tension and technology".32

[Bianca]

Steven Rockefeller



"The only long-answer to the problem of terrorism is to build a global culture of peace", wrote Professor Steven C. Rockefeller, one of Nelson's sons, on 29 September 2001.33
Steven's prescriptions were perhaps unsurprising, given his role in formulating the Earth Charter, a document released in March 2000 by the Earth Charter Commission. The purpose of the Charter, according to Steven, who was Chairman of the Earth Charter International Drafting Committee, is to "articulate the ethical principles that should shape whatever institutions of global governance the human community decides to develop".34 Providing overall guidance to those forces, particularly NGOs, which are taking part in the steady erosion of national sovereignty and the undermining of those democratic systems that exist through the construction of more effective international institutions, seems to be a primary objective. Pointing to the "growth of a new powerful international civil network that includes many influential nongovernmental organizations", Steven Rockefeller has argued:
The emerging global civil society is in a position to exercise significant influence on governments and international corporations in the twenty-first century, and it can benefit from the kind of strong integrated ethical vision that is being developed in the Earth Charter.35

The Earth Charter Initiative is no enterprise set up by an otherwise obscure academic, but a joint effort involving Maurice Strong, the Chairman of the Earth Council, and former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, President of Green Cross International. Funding for the Earth Charter Initiative has come from the RBF (of which Steven is Chairman), some UN agencies, and the Netherlands government. More importantly, the Charter's authors hope for it to receive endorsement from the UN General Assembly, making it into a "soft law document"—much like the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is a statement of intentions rather than a binding document. However, as Steven notes, "in the history of international law, soft law tends to become hard law over time". With this in mind, a "hard law treaty", the Draft International Covenant on Environment and Development, has been written in tandem with the Charter.36

The document in question is closer to the visions of a purer world promoted by JDR3 and Laurance—the musings of contented plutocrats intent on leaving a legacy of global change rather than necessarily increasing their personal wealth. According to Steven Rockefeller, besides calling for a "culture of peace" the Charter envisages a "just and sustainable socio-economic order", eradicating poverty, promoting "ecological integrity", "human development in the fullest sense", but in a manner that is "consistent with the flourishing of Earth's ecological systems".
The "New Beginning" that the Charter promotes at its conclusion is for all humanity to undergo a "change of heart and mind"—a message also underlined in the Preamble, with its call for the unanimous embrace of a "shared ethical vision" of "universal responsibility" by securing a pledge of commitment to the Charter's principles from those who endorse it.37
The ultimate objective of this Utopian document is an Arcadia, a perfect world made possible when we all think alike.

[Bianca]

THE ROCKEFELLER NETWORK TODAY




While the commitment of the current generation of Rockefellers to the Wilson–Fosdick New World Order model may seem limited, the Rockefeller fortune, directed through a plethora of foundations and organisations, ensures that the ideology has supporters even if they are not family. Leading this effort are the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Rockefeller Foundation and the less-well-known Rockefeller Family Fund and Laurance Rockefeller Charitable Trust. Each of these organisations promotes the globalist agenda, some more obviously than others.

On its website, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund describes itself as a "philanthropic organisation dedicated to improving the well-being of all people in the transition to global interdependence". This is evident in the plethora of programs to which the RBF devotes resources from its still-deep coffers. In 1997, for example, the then outgoing RBF Chairman, Abby M. O'Neill, noted how the RBF had long been committed to a number of "core program ideas", among them "the challenge of global interdependence and American leadership". These programs were occasionally adjusted, and in 1983 the RBF adopted a "One World" strategy with an "explicitly global perspective and an emphasis on the convergence of national and international frameworks". Some 15 years later, O'Neill observed, "the One World theme is more relevant than ever".38

During the 1980s, the RBF's "One World" programs focused on nuclear non-proliferation and international relations, development, trade and finance. In 1996, following the end of the Cold War, the RBF revised its "One World" strategy, launching what was intended to be a two-year review of its grant-making. To help develop new guidelines, a "Project on World Security" was started. The RBF also funded a program of research on "transnational governance" at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The RBF's new guidelines for its "Global Security Program", released in 1999, committed the Fund to building "strong domestic constituencies for cooperative international engagement" and supporting efforts to "understand, adjust to and steer the process of increased economic integration…"39

A look at the Global Security Program's grants for 1999 and 2000 reveals the RBF gave grants to: the International Forum on Globalization "For efforts to develop a positive vision of global governance"; US$70,000 to the Benton Foundation to bring its oneworld.org website to the US; $500,000 to the Aspen Institute for its role in the "Global Interdependence Initiative" project; $300,000 to the CEIP for its "Managing Global Issues Project"; and $200,000 to the South Centre in Switzerland to support developing-country NGOs and governments on "trade and global governance issues".40

One of the first reports of the RBF's Global Interdependence Initiative, "Global Interdependence and the Need for Social Stewardship" (1997), noted with alarm the "waning of public and political support" within the US for "cooperative international engagement". To remedy this, the report recommended that US leaders work to convince the American public that such an approach was consistent with their values and interests. And to support the leadership, a wide-ranging "public" constituency should be built, combining NGOs, businesses, educators, unions, the media, religious groups and philanthropic foundations. NGOs would be "central to any constituency-building effort" and could also be used by multilateral and bilateral institutions to "bypass corrupt governments".41 As with all Rockefeller efforts, changing public attitudes is the key. The implications of this report and others in this project are simple: public attitudes, especially in the US, must be changed to make "One World" possible.

Written into the Charter of the Rockefeller Foundation, when it was originally founded in 1913, is the objective of contributing to "the well-being of mankind throughout the world". During much of its life, the Foundation has realised this goal through its involvement in mostly medical and educational programs around the world and, for a time during the 1920s, the provision of direct financial support to certain operations of the League of Nations. In 1999, however, the Rockefeller Foundation announced a "new global mission" of helping "poor people excluded from globalization's benefits".

The aims or "themes" seemed laudable: to "improve poor people's lives and livelihoods through the application of knowledge, science, technology, research and analysis"; and to "ensure that globalization processes are more democratic and equitable and benefit the most vulnerable, disenfranchised populations, cultures and communities around the world".42

Though we might note that as this last "theme", actually designated a "cross-theme", is "global inclusion", the ultimate objective is easy to discern: to draw those outside of the evolving "One World" into its grasp. Beyond including "poor people" in "decisions that may affect their lives" is the implicit acknowledgement that if their lives are already not being affected by globalisation then they soon will be.

The other funds also contribute, though perhaps less notably. The little-known Rockefeller Family Fund, for instance, acts as a conduit for donations from other philanthropic organisations, including the Rockefeller, Ford, Turner, Scherman and Packard Foundations, to environmental causes such as preventing global warming and promoting a "Green Car". The RFF also provides money to the Funders Network on Trade and Globalization, the organisation used by many foundations to fund NGOs.43 The even more obscure Laurance Rockefeller Charitable Trust funds activist groups, such as the Center for Science in the Public Interest, an organisation that has targeted the fast food industry for legal action in its determination to force people to eat healthy foods.44 The purpose of this funding is always the same: to increase the pressures on governments and to mould public opinion in service of the broader Utopian goal of "One World".

[Bianca]

CONCLUSION:




The purpose of this series has been to document the evolution of the Rockefeller family's internationalist ideology from the 1920s through to the present day. Underlying this analysis is an assumption, gleaned from the various primary documents cited, that the Rockefeller strategy for a New World Order or "One World" has two essential mutually reinforcing components: firstly, the promotion of international economic integration; and secondly, the establishment of strong supranational institutions.

The origins of this agenda can be traced to the ideas of US President Woodrow Wilson, which were then passed on to John D. Rockefeller, Junior, by his adviser, Raymond B. Fosdick. Junior's sons, especially David and Nelson, have done the most to promote, expand and implement this agenda. The current generation of Rockefellers, in contrast, seems little more than guardians of a legacy—one that the network of Rockefeller philanthropies and policy-planning groups continues to endorse.

The waning of direct Rockefeller influence does not, unfortunately, mean the decline of the program by any means, for there are plenty of new rich who share the same objectives and who are determined to use their wealth to the same ends.
The notorious currency speculator George Soros, for example, has long portrayed himself as a supporter of a "global open society". Mirroring David Rockefeller's trilateralist concept, Soros has called for an alliance of the "democratic states of the world", led by the United States working with the European Union, to build a "global open society" by reforming the UN and other supranational institutions including the World Trade Organization.45 He has devoted the resources of his main philanthropic organisation, the Open Society Institute, to this goal.

Ted Turner, the founder of CNN, is another in this league, who demonstrated his intentions through his US$1 billion donation to the United Nations in 1997. "I see myself as a citizen of this Earth," Turner once told Gorbachev.46 Though Turner's fortunes have waned, other plutocrats—among them Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, both intent on dispersing most of their fortunes—are waiting in the wings.

The agenda of the Rockefellers and their successors is hidden in plain sight. If we look past the veil of media-led denial and ridicule, one does not have to look far to find it. Whether we just watch it unfold is another matter… ∞

Endnotes:
1. Ron Chernow, Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr, Warner Books, 1999, pp. 653-656.
2. Ferdinand Lundberg, The Rich and The Super-Rich: A Study in the Power of Money Today, Lyle Stuart, Inc, 1968, p. 597.
3. John E. Harr and Peter J. Johnson, The Rockefeller Conscience: An American Family in Public and in Private, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1991, pp. 90-96.
4. ibid., p. 98.
5. See Asia Society website at http://www.asiasociety.org.
6. See Katherine Barkley and Steve Weissman, "The Eco-Establishment"; and Steve Weissman, "Why the Population Bomb Is A Rockefeller Baby", in Editors of Ramparts, Eco-Catastrophe, Harper & Row, 1970.
7. Weissman, "Why the Population Bomb Is a Rockefeller Baby", p. 29; and Raymond B. Fosdick, The Story of the Rockefeller Foundation, Odhams Press, 1952, p. 244.
8. John D. Rockefeller III, "People, Food and the Well-Being of Mankind", Second McDougall Lecture 1961, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1961, pp. 9, 16-18.
9. This was a report that then President Richard Nixon dismissed in a brief but stiff meeting with JDR3, adding to the long list of deliberate snubs Nixon directed at the Rockefellers, possibly to his ultimate cost. For details of this incident, see Peter Collier and David Horowitz, The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty, New American Library, 1976, pp. 374-375.
10. John D. Rockefeller III, The Second American Revolution: Some Personal Observations, Harper & Row, 1973, pp. 62-63.
11. Quoted in Weissman, "Why The Population Bomb Is A Rockefeller Baby", pp. 30-31.
12. David Rockefeller, "The Population Problem and Economic Progress", Vital Speeches of the Day, April 1, 1966, p. 367.
13. See, for example, "Genocide" at http://www.africa2000.com; and Mark and Louise Zwick, "Population Control: Ethnic Cleansing: Return of Nazi Eugenics", Houston Catholic Worker, July-August 1999.
14. Rockefeller, The Second American Revolution, pp. 66-68.
15. ibid., pp. 106-110, 117, 119-120, 125-130.
16. For a more detailed account, see Weissman, "Why The Population Bomb Is A Rockefeller Baby".
17. For one of few accounts of this dispute, though one that is severely limited by being from David Rockefeller's point of view alone, see David Rockefeller, Memoirs, Random House, 2002, pp. 336-355. Nelson died six months later, when, according to David, most of the dispute had been resolved.
18. David Icke, "Crop Circle Mystery Solved. Phew! What Would We Do Without The Rockefellers? Thanks, Colin", at http://www.davidicke.com/icke/articles2/crop-circles.html; and Michael Hesemann, quoted in Barry Chamish, 'My Disappearance Explained', Insight, July 8, 2001 (emphasis added).
19. Lundberg, The Rich and the Super-Rich, p. 596; and Robin W. Winks, "Laurance S. Rockefeller: Catalyst for Conservation – Chapter One", New York Times, November 23, 1997.
20. Chernow, Titan, pp. 658-659.
21. Quoted in Winks, "Laurance S. Rockefeller".
22. Laurance Rockefeller, "The Case for a Simpler Life-Style", The Reader's Digest, February 1976, p. 61 (emphasis added).
23. ibid., pp. 64-65.
24. "Laurance S. Rockefeller Grants $190,000 for Faculty Projects Support for 'New Story of the Universe' Projects", Inner Eye, February 8, 2001, at CIIS website, http://www.ciis.edu (emphasis added).
25. The following list is derived from: "Rockefeller Greets Aliens! A Rich Guy's UFO Dream", New York Observer, April 8, 1996; Peter Carlson, "Fertile Imaginations", New York Times, August 10, 2002; and Paul Joseph Watson, "Counterfeit Foe – The Ultimate Hegelian Dialectic", at PropagandaMatrix.com.
26. See Watson, "Counterfeit Foe"; and Milton William Cooper, Behold A Pale Horse, Light Technology, 1991, pp. 232-235.
27. See Susan Adams, "The Reluctant Rockefeller", Forbes, May 3, 1999, p. 86.
28. See the Synergos Institute website at http://www.synergos.org.
29. Rio+5 Forum, "Global Governance for Sustainable Development", March 18, 1997 at http://www.ecouncil.ac.cr/rio5/mar18/workben.html.
30. Statement of CFR Task Force, Promoting US Economic Relations with Africa, May 22, 1997, at CFR website, http://www.cfr.org.
31. Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Civil Society and Global Governance, High-Level Panel on UN-Civil Society, June 13, 2003, at UN website http://www.un.org/reform/pdfs/cardosopaper13june.htm.
32. David Rockefeller, Jr, "Reflections and Visions: Business–Arts Alliances", October 14, 1997, at http://www.bcainc.org/programs.asp?pg=5.
33. Steven C. Rockefeller, "Building a Global Culture of Peace: The Earth Charter", Orion Online, September 29, 2001.
34. Steven C. Rockefeller, "Rockefeller Speaks Up for the Earth Charter", The New American, November 4, 2002.
35. Steven C. Rockefeller, "An Introduction to the Text of the Earth Charter", at http://www.earthforum.org.
36. ibid.
37. ibid.
38. Abby M. O'Neill, Chairman's Essay, from the 1997 RBF Annual Report, at http://www.rbf.org.
39. "Global Security Program: Introduction to the RBF's New Global Security Guidelines", at http://www.rbf.org.
40. "One World: Global Security, Grants", at http://www.rbf.org.
41. Laurie Ann Mazur and Susan E. Sechler, Global Interdependence and the Need for Social Stewardship, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, 1997, pp. 5, 25-30.
42. See Rockefeller Foundation website, http://www.rockfound.org.
43. See "Rockefeller Family Fund" at http://www.undueinfluence.org.
44. On both the Trust and the CSPI, see http://www.consumerfreedom.com.
45. See George Soros, Open Society: Reforming Global Capitalism, Little Brown & Co., 2000, pp. 330-359.
46. Quoted in Janet Lowe, Ted Turner Speaks, John Wiley & Sons, 1999, p. 187.

 

About the Author:
Will Banyan, BA (Hons), Grad. Dip. (Information Science), is a writer specialising in the political economy of globalisation. He was worked for local and national governments as well as some international organisations, and was recently consulting on global issues for a private corporation. He is currently working on a revisionist history of the New World Order. Will Banyan can be contacted by email at banyan007@rediffmail.com.

[Volitzer]

The fact that nations don't get a vote on whether to be included in the Global Union is concern enough not to pander to their agenda.

Also  how much longer are they going to keep us addicted to fossil fuels??  They won't last forever.

What about Solarism as well as Globalism??   Funny how the make no mention of universal freedoms that our interplanetary neighbors enjoy but they want to keep Earth humanity as their globalized indentured servants.   

[KTCat]

Also  how much longer are they going to keep us addicted to fossil fuels??  They won't last forever.

Volitzer, over 30 years ago Kissinger said, "Food is power. Nations can be controlled by it." Whatever makes you think the good old boy network hasn't been aware for years that eventually the oil was going to run out? Today there are only four corporations that account for 64% of all agricultural products brought to market in the USA. The same jerks who own the oil and the banks, (etc.) have been buying up the land our food is grown on. They know where the power is. Don't kid yourself.

[Tom Hebert]

So what can we "little people" do about it?  Should we vote Democrat or Republican?

[KTCat]

Good question, Tom! I've been contemplating that question since I woke up this morning, on this, our American Independence Day. And I think I am going to start a new thread in this same section, asking people to post their ideas about what we can do to preserve our American freedom, because I think it is a subject many Americans are worried about today. (No partisan politics please.) I really want to hear what people think, and when the thread is completed, I hope the rest of you join me in copying that thread to an e-mail that will be sent to every dang senator and representative in Washington DC. What can we do? Well, we can begin by making sure our voices are heard. That process still works, believe it or not, and we just saw the proof of that. If Americans had NOT made their voices heard, the Amnesty Bill would have been passed, resulting in even more future job losses for Americans.

So let us begin by continuing to make our voices heard. America was built by people who thought deep and long about what constitutes and preserves human freedom and dignity. And there are some great thinkers on this forum, so let's put our heads together and think about what we can do to preserve freedom in America.

[Volitzer]

So what can we "little people" do about it?  Should we vote Democrat or Republican?

Anti-Illuminati....

[Bianca]

GET RELIGION OUT OF POLITICS:  Start taxing the churches that are activily politically involved
                                              and see how fast the shut up........

[KTCat]

Understand that the Council on Foreign Relations is the long arm of the Illuminati, and the most powerful behind the scenes working group operating in Washington DC today...