This is just as appropriate today as it was in 2005, maybe more so.


Arlene Johnson
To access my work, click on the icon that says Magazine.
Password for 2006 editions: message

Foreign Policy and the Power Elite

Scott Ritsema

 April 4 2005


Any objective observer can see the wisdom of the Founding Fathers’ foreign 
policy philosophy of non-interventionism: friendly trade relationships with all 
nations, but pre-emptive war and alliances with none. It was a philosophy that 
kept us safe and prosperous until 1898, when we began to turn from its wisdom, 
as we declared war on Spain. The 20th century witnessed further ill-advised 
departures from the foreign policy philosophy of our Founding Fathers. Today, 
aside from a few scattered patriots, Washington can essentially be divided into 
two camps, internationalists and neo-conservative 
internationalist/interventionists, neither of which is truly American, and both 
of which, controlled by the same power elite, lead to the same ends: world 

The first camp, mostly comprised of Democrat internationalists, genuinely seeks 
submergence of the US into a UN-controlled world government in which the EU and 
an increasingly socialist US hold the seats of power. Their philosophy aligns 
with that of the Europeans; they believe in “democratic socialism” (two very 
un-American words) and the end of national sovereignty. The political values of 
this camp do not reflect, in the least, the political philosophy of the 
Founding Fathers.

This socialist internationalist philosophy can most clearly trace its roots to 
the scheming of Edward M. House (or “Colonel House”), who was a close advisor 
to Woodrow Wilson, and was even described by Wilson as his “independent self.” 
The philosophy of House was a far cry from that of our Founding Fathers. In 
fact, he argued that the Constitution was a product of out-dated 18th century 
philosophy, and it needed to be scrapped. His solution was socialist world 
government. In his own words, what he sought was “socialism as dreamed of by 
Karl Marx.”

Additionally, he was the primary advocate for the League of Nations and became 
the principle founder of the Council on Foreign Relations in 1921 after the 
Senate’s refusal to agree to U.S. membership in the League. The Council on 
Foreign Relations, then, became the brains behind the New Deal and the United 
Nations, and is described by many as the ruling establishment even to this day. 
It is not difficult to see how this philosophy has been leading us into the 
“new world order” (their own phrase) that these internationalists have dreamed 
of for the last century, as the United Nations has grown in power over the 

The second camp, mostly comprised of Republican neo-conservatives, seeks to 
cooperate with and empower the UN, but has as its main goal a virtual “Pax 
Americana” and the “greatness of the state”, brought about through endless 
pre-emptive war. As detailed extensively by Ron Paul in his excellent speech, 
Neo-Conned, these self-proclaimed neo-conservatives are not conservative and 
there is nothing new about the disgraceful philosophy to which they adhere. 
Their philosophy of endless war and big government really finds its roots in 
Machiavelli’s obsession with the “greatness of the state” along with Trotsky’s 
belief in “permanent revolution.” It is well documented and undeniable that 
neo-conservatism is not compatible with the non-interventionism, limited 
government, and constitutionalism held to by our Founding Fathers. Individual 
liberty is not even on their radar, much less is it the priority of 

Interestingly enough, most of the prominent neo-conservatives are also part of 
the CFR power elite. Clearly, the philosophy of the neo-cons does not detract 
from the move toward world government in the least; rather, neo-conservatism 
hastens its coming in an obvious way, as well as a round-about way. It does so, 
first, because neo-cons continually legitimize the UN, seeking to “give teeth” 
to the world body, and back its resolutions with military force. This pro-UN 
stance is much neglected by good Americans who desire to see Republicans as 
defenders of American sovereignty. Yet it is clearly obvious that these 
neo-cons are not anti-UN. They seek to fight wars to uphold its resolutions and 
they seek to cooperate with the UN whenever possible.

Secondly, neo-conservatives aid in the empowerment of the world government by 
energizing the left wing through their torturous disregard for life and human 
dignity. By doing this, the neo-cons not only give America a bad name, but also 
spur world-wide left-wingers to unite and beg for a new world order to stop the 
American “fascists.” This is demonstrated clearly in the fact that France and 
Germany now see themselves and the whole of the EU as a counterbalance to the 
US. They seek to have the seat of power of the coming world government sit in 
Europe, rather than in the US. In short, the stronger the neo-cons get, the 
more they energize the left-wing push for world government.

So, in the end, both internationalism and neo-conservatism are un-American and 
will lead to the empowerment of world government. The common denominator in 
these two groups, as noted above, is the Council on Foreign Relations. This 
connection shows that this push toward world government and the destruction of 
national sovereignty is not by accident. All events in history occur because of 
multiple forces acting together, including behind-the-scenes actors.

Carroll Quigley, former Georgetown Professor and mentor to Bill Clinton, in his 
historical account, Tragedy and Hope, described the formation of the CFR. He 
explained that he had insider information on this semi-secret organization, and 
mentioned that he had viewed their secret records for two years. The CFR, since 
its inception, has succeeded in getting its members into positions of power in 
government, academia, media, corporate America, and international finance. It 
has, since the New Deal, held a tight grip on the State Department, and to this 
day exercises an inordinate amount of power in our government, in the 
Republican and Democrat parties alike. In fact, Quigley noted that the strategy 
of the establishment was and ought to be to control both parties, so that the 
voters could “throw the rascals out” and achieve no change in policy when it 
comes to matters of constitutional import and national sovereignty.

One might inevitably ask, “if the CFR has such a wide net of influence on the 
foreign policy of the US to the extent that they could nearly determine 
national policy, why hasn’t the average American even heard of the 
organization?” The answer to this is simple; it is the same reason why the 
average American is ignorant of the Bohemian Grove, the Bilderberg Group, and 
other clubs and events in which the elites are engaged. The reason is this: 
members at these groups include the media giants who decide what we hear, read, 
and see on the news. It is in their interest, then, to keep their scheming 
quiet. This fact was illustrated quite poignantly by David Rockefeller, when he 
praised the media for their secrecy:

“We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and 
other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and 
respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have 
been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been 
subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now 
more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The 
supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely 
preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."

This quote seems too unbelievable to be true, but it is truly undeniable; 
Rockefeller spoke these words in Baden-Baden, Germany in 1991.

Furthermore, many people are ignorant of CFR influence because any talk of 
world government or “new world order” has been marginalized as the talk of 
“conspiracy theorists.” Despite the proof of what the aims of the CFR really 
are, these good Americans have been neutralized and ostracized, striking fear 
into anyone else who might make such “ridiculous” claims.

So, when all is said and done, internationalism and neo-conservatism are two 
un-American philosophies, each being used by the same power elite to achieve 
its long-sought-after goal of a “new world order.” These two philosophies ought 
to be rejected by Americans who love liberty and embrace national sovereignty.

Internationalism and neo-conservatism must be exposed as the tools of the new 
world order that they truly are. Until this happens, the nations of the world 
will continue blindly down the road toward world tyranny.

Complete archives at

Please let us stay on topic and be civil.


Yahoo! Groups Links

•       To visit your group on the web, go to:
•       To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
•       Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Reply via email to