January 21, 2008 by rebtl
*Don’t believe the things this video says? Read it here on their own website: CFR (coincidently or not, written by Richard Hass)
The Bad guys
Fred Thompson- CFR (D)
Rudy Giuliani- CFR (R)
John McCain- CFR (R)
Mitt Romney- CFR (R)
Hillary Clinton- CFR/Bilderberg (D)
Barack Obama- CFR/Muslim/AIPAC(D)
John Edwards- CFR (D)
Joe Biden- CFR (D)
Chris Dodd- CFR (D)
Bill Richardson- CFR/AIPAC (D)
Who Opposes the CFR?
Ron Paul
Dennis Kucinich
Mike Gravel
Tom Tancredo
For those who may be confused by the controversies surrounding the "New World Order", a One-World-Government, and American concern over giving the UN more power; those unaware of the issues involved; and those wishing more background, I offer the following.
Originally presented for an Honors Class, "Dilemmas of War and Peace," at New Mexico State University, the paper was ridiculed and characterized by Dr. Yosef Lapid, (an acknowledged and locally quoted "expert" on Terrorism and Middle Eastern affairs) as "paranoid... possibly a symptom of mental illness." You may judge for yourself.
Citing source data is the "scientific method," but does not seem to apply to "Conspiracy Theories." A thousand sources may be quoted, yet will not convince the "skeptics," the "realists." It seems to me the "symptoms of mental illness" are on their side, if they refuse to look at evidence ("There are none so blind as those who WILL not see"); or perhaps something more sinister is at work, such as a knowledge of the truth, that does not want YOU to know.
To be paranoid means to believe in delusions of danger and persecution. If the danger is real, and the evidence credible, then it cannot be delusional. To ignore the evidence, and hope that it CANNOT be true, is more an evidence of mental illness.
The issue involves much more than a difference of philosophy, or political viewpoint. Growing up in the midst of the "Cold War," our generation were taught that those who attempted to abolish our national sovereignty and overthrow our Constitutional government were committing acts of treason. Please judge for yourself if the group discussed is guilty of such.
If one group is effectively in control of national governments and multinational corporations; promotes world government through control of media, foundation grants, and education; and controls and guides the issues of the day; then they control most options available. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and the financial powers behind it, have done all these things, and promote the "New World Order", as they have for over seventy years.
The CFR is the promotional arm of the Ruling Elite in the United States of America. Most influential politicians, academics and media personalities are members, and it uses its influence to infiltrate the New World Order into American life. Its' "experts" write scholarly pieces to be used in decision making, the academics expound on the wisdom of a united world, and the media members disseminate the message.
To understand how the most influential people in America came to be members of an organization working purposefully for the overthrow of the Constitution and American sovereignty, we have to go back at least to the early 1900's, though the story begins much earlier (depending on your viewpoint and beliefs).
That a ruling power elite does indeed control the U.S. government behind the scenes has been attested to by many americans in a position to know. Felix Frankfurter, Justice of the Supreme Court (1939-1962), said: "The real rulers in Washington are invisible and exercise power from behind the scenes." In a letter to an associate dated November 21, 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt wrote, "The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson." February 23, 1954,
Senator William Jenner warned in a speech: "Outwardly we have a Constitutional government. We have operating within our government and political system, another body representing another form of government, a bureaucratic elite which believes our Constitution is outmoded."
Baron M.A. Rothschild wrote, "Give me control over a nation's currency and I care not who makes its laws."
All that is needed to effectively control a government is to have control over the nation's money: a central bank with a monopoly over the supply of money and credit. This had been done in Western Europe, with the creation of privately owned central banks such as the Bank of England.
Georgetown professor Dr. Carroll Quigley (Bill Clinton's mentor while at Georgetown) wrote about the goals of the investment bankers who control central banks: "... nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole... controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences."
The Bank of the United States (1816-36), an early attempt at an American central bank, was abolished by President Andrew Jackson, who believed that it threatened the nation. He wrote: "The bold effort the present bank had made to control the government, the distress it had wantonly produced...are but premonitions of the fate that awaits the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it."
Thomas Jefferson wrote: "The Central Bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the principles and form of our Constitution...if the American people allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
Does that not describe the situation in America today?
The U.S. managed to do without a central bank until early in this century, when, according to Congressman Charles Lindbergh, Sr., "The Money Trust caused the 1907 panic, and thereby forced Congress to create a National Monetary Commission." Headed by Senator Nelson Aldrich, father-in-law of John D. Rockefeller, Jr., the Commission recommended creation of a central bank.
Though unconstitutional, as only "The Congress shall have Power...To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof..." (Article I, Section 8, U.S. Constitution) the Federal Reserve Act was passed in December 1913; ostensibly to stabilize the economy and prevent further panics, but as Lindberg warned Congress: "This act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth...the invisible government by the money power, proven to exist by the Money Trust investigation, will be legalized." The Great Depression and numerous recessions later, it is obvious the Federal Reserve produces inflation and federal debt whenever it desires, but not stability.
Congressman Louis McFadden, House Committee on Banking and Currency Chairman (1920-31), stated: "When the Federal Reserve Act was passed, the people of these United States did not perceive that a world banking system was being set up here. A super-state controlled by international bankers and industrialists...acting together to enslave the world...Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its powers but the truth is--the Fed has usurped the government."
Although called "Federal," the Federal Reserve system is privately owned by member banks, makes its own policies, and is not subject to oversight by Congress or the President. As the overseer and supplier of reserves, the Fed gave banks access to public funds, which enhanced their lending capacity.
Peter Kershaw, in "Economic Solutions" lists the ten major shareholders of the Federal Reserve Bank System as: Rothschild: London and Berlin; Lazard Bros: Paris; Israel Seiff: Italy; Kuhn- Loeb Company: Germany; Warburg: Hamburg and Amsterdam; Lehman Bros: New York; Goldman and Sachs: New York; Rockefeller: New York. (That most, if not all of these families just happen to be Jewish, you may judge the significance of yourself). The balance of stock is owned by major commercial member banks.
According to Devvy Kidd, "Why A Bankrupt America?" The Federal Reserve pays the Bureau of Engraving & Printing approximately $23 for each 1,000 notes printed. 10,000 $100 notes (one million dollars) would thus cost the Federal Reserve $230. They then secure a pledge of collateral equal to the face value from the U.S. government. The collateral is our land, labor, and assets... collected by their agents, the IRS. By authorizing the Fed to regulate and create money (and thus inflation), Congress gave private banks power to create profits at will.
As Lindberg put it: "The new law will create inflation whenever the trusts want inflation...they can unload the stocks on the people at high prices during the excitement and then bring on a panic and buy them back at low prices...the day of reckoning is only a few years removed." That day came in 1929, with the Stock Market crash and Great Depression.
One of the most important powers given to the Fed was the right to buy and sell government securities, and provide loans to member banks so they might also purchase them. This provided another built-in mechanism for profit to the banks, if government debt was increased. All that was needed was a method to pay off the debt. This was accomplished through the passage of the income tax in 1913.
A national income tax was declared unconstitutional in 1895 by the Supreme Court, so a constitutional amendment was proposed in Congress by none other than ...Senator Nelson Aldrich. As presented to the American people it seemed reasonable enough: income tax on only one percent of income under $20,000, with the assurance that it would never increase.
Since it was graduated, the tax would "soak the rich", ...but the rich had other plans, already devising a method of protecting wealth. As described by Gary Allen in his 1976 book "The Rockefeller File," "By the time the (16th) Amendment had been approved by the states, the Rockefeller Foundation was in full operation...about the same time that Judge Kenesaw Landis was ordering the breakup of the Standard Oil monopoly...John D...not only avoided taxes by creating four great tax-exempt foundations; he used them as repositories for his 'divested' interests...made his assets non-taxable so that they might be passed down through generations without...estate and gift taxes...Each year the Rockefellers can dump up to half their incomes into their pet foundations and deduct the "donations" from their income tax."
Exchanging ownership for control of wealth, foundations are also a handy means for promoting interests that benefit the wealthy. Millions of foundation dollars have been "donated" to causes such as promoting the use of drugs, while degrading preventive medicine. Since many drugs are made from coal tar derivatives, both oil companies and drug manufacturing concerns (many Rockefeller owned or controlled) are the main beneficiaries.
With the means to loan enormous sums to the government (the Federal Reserve), a method to repay the debt (income tax), and an escape from taxation for the wealthy, (foundations), all that remained was an excuse to borrow money. By some happy "coincidence," in 1914 World War I began, and after American participation national debt rose from $1 billion to $25 billion.
Woodrow Wilson was elected President in 1913, beating incumbent William Howard Taft, who had vowed to veto legislation establishing a central bank. To divide the Republican vote and elect the relatively unknown Wilson, J.P. Morgan and Co. poured money into the candidacy of Teddy Roosevelt and his Progressive Party.
According to an eyewitness, Wilson was brought to Democratic Party headquarters in 1912 by Bernard Baruch, a wealthy banker. He received an "indoctrination course" from those he met, and in return agreed, if elected: to support the projected Federal Reserve and the income tax, and "listen" to advice in case of war in Europe and on the composition of his cabinet.
Wilson's top advisor during his two terms was a man named Colonel Edward M. House. House's biographer, Charles Seymour, called him the "unseen guardian angel" of the Federal Reserve Act, helping to guide it through Congress. Another biographer wrote that House believed: "...the Constitution, product of eighteenth-century minds...was thoroughly outdated; that the country would be better off if the Constitution could be scrapped and rewritten..." House wrote a book entitled "Philip Dru: Administrator," published anonymously in 1912. The hero, Philip Dru, rules America and introduces radical changes, such as a graduated income tax, a central bank, and a "league of nations."
World War I produced both a large national debt, and huge profits for those who had backed Wilson. Baruch was appointed head of the War Industries Board, where he exercised dictatorial power over the national economy. He and the Rockefellers were reported to have earned over $200 million during the war. Wilson backer Cleveland Dodge sold munitions to the allies, while J.P. Morgan loaned them hundreds of millions, with the protection of U.S. entry into the war.
While profit was certainly a motive, the war was also useful to justify the notion of world government. William Hoar reveals in "Architects of Conspiracy" that during the 1950s, government investigators examining the records of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a long- time promoter of globalism, found that several years before the outbreak of World War I, the Carnegie trustees were planning to involve the U.S. in a general war, to set the stage for world government.
The main obstacle was that Americans did not want any involvement in European wars. Some kind of incident, such as the explosion of the battleship Main, which provoked the Spanish - American war, would have to be provided as provocation. This occurred when the Lusitania, carrying 128 Americans on board, was sunk by a German submarine, and anti-German sentiment was aroused. When war was declared, U.S. propaganda portrayed all Germans as Huns and fanged serpents, and all Americans opposing the war as traitors.
What was not revealed at the time, however, was that the Lusitania was transporting war munitions to England, making it a legitimate target for the Germans. Even so, they had taken out large ads in the New York papers, asking that Americans not take passage on the ship.
The evidence seems to point to a deliberate plan to have the ship sunk by the Germans. Colin Simpson, author of "The Lusitania," wrote that Winston Churchill, head of the British Admiralty during the war, had ordered a report to predict the political impact if a passenger ship carrying Americans was sunk. German naval codes had been broken by the British, who knew approximately where all U-boats near the British Isles were located.
According to Simpson, Commander Joseph Kenworthy, of British Naval Intelligence, stated: "The Lusitania was deliberately sent at considerably reduced speed into an area where a U-boat was known to be waiting...escorts withdrawn." Thus, even though Wilson had been reelected in 1916 with the slogan "He kept us out of war," America soon found itself fighting a European war. Actually, Colonel House had already negotiated a secret agreement with England, committing the U.S. to the conflict. It seems the American public had little say in the matter.
With the end of the war and the Versailles Treaty, which required severe war reparations from Germany, the way was paved for a leader in Germany such as Hitler. Wilson brought to the Paris Peace Conference his famous "fourteen points," with point fourteen being a proposal for a "general association of nations," which was to be the first step towards the goal of One World Government-the League of Nations.
Wilson's official biographer, Ray Stannard Baker, revealed that the League was not Wilson's idea. "...not a single idea--in the Covenant of the League was original with the President." Colonel House was the author of the Covenant, and Wilson had merely rewritten it to conform to his own phraseology.
The League of Nations was established, but it, and the plan for world government eventually failed because the U.S. Senate would not ratify the Versailles Treaty.
Pat Robertson, in "The New World Order," states that Colonel House, along with other internationalists, realized that America would not join any scheme for world government without a change in public opinion.
After a series of meetings, it was decided that an "Institute of International Affairs", with two branches, in the United States and England, would be formed.
The British branch became known as the Royal Institute of International Affairs, with leadership provided by members of the Round Table. Begun in the late 1800's by Cecil Rhodes, the Round Table aimed to federate the English speaking peoples of the world, and bring it under their rule.
The Council on Foreign Relations was incorporated as the American branch in New York on July 29, 1921. Founding members included Colonel House, and "...such potentates of international banking as J.P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, Paul Warburg, Otto Kahn, and Jacob Schiff...the same clique which had engineered the establishment of the Federal Reserve System," according to Gary Allen in the October 1972 issue of "AMERICAN OPINION."
The founding president of the CFR was John W. Davis, J.P. Morgan's personal attorney, while the vice-president was Paul Cravath, also representing the Morgan interests. Professor Carroll Quigley characterized the CFR as "...a front group for J.P. Morgan and Company in association with the very small American Round Table Group." Over time Morgan influence was lost to the Rockefellers, who found that one world government fit their philosophy of business well. As John D. Rockefeller, Sr. had said: "Competition is a sin," and global monopoly fit their needs as they grew internationally.
Antony Sutton, a research fellow for the Hoover Institution for War, Revolution, and Peace at Stanford University, wrote of this philosophy: "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 the most efficient way to gain an unchallenged monopoly was to 'go political' and make society go to work for the monopolists-- under the name of the public good and the public interest."
Frederick C. Howe revealed the strategy of using government in a 1906 book, "Confessions of a Monopolist": "These are the rules of big business...Get a monopoly; let society work for you; and remember that the best of all business is politics..."
As corporations went international, national monopolies could no longer protect their interests. What was needed was a one world system of government controlled from behind the scenes. This had been the plan since the time of Colonel House, and to implement it, it was necessary to weaken the U.S. politically and economically.
During the 1920's, America enjoyed a decade of prosperity, fueled by the easy availability of credit. Between 1923 and 1929 the Federal Reserve expanded the money supply by sixty-two percent. When the stock market crashed, many small investors were ruined, but not "insiders." In March of 1929 Paul Warburg issued a tip the Crash was coming, and the largest investors got out of the market, according to Allen and Abraham in "None Dare Call it Conspiracy."
With their fortunes intact, they were able to buy companies for a fraction of their worth. Shares that had sold for a dollar might now cost a nickel, and the buying power, and wealth, of the rich increased enormously.
Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking Committee declared: "It was not accidental. It was a carefully contrived occurrence...The international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so that they might emerge as rulers of us all."
Curtis Dall, son-in-law of FDR and a syndicate manager for Lehman Brothers, an investment firm, was on the N.Y. Stock Exchange floor the day of the crash. In "FDR: My Exploited Father-In-Law," he states: "...it was the calculated 'shearing' of the public by the World-Money powers triggered by the planned sudden shortage of call money in the New York Market."
The Crash paved the way for the man Wall Street had groomed for the presidency, FDR. Portrayed as a "man of the little people", the reality was that Roosevelt's family had been involved in New York banking since the eighteenth century.
Frederic Delano, FDR's uncle, served on the original Federal Reserve Board. FDR attended Groton and Harvard, and in the 1920's worked on Wall Street, sitting on the board of directors of eleven different corporations.
Dall wrote of his father-in-law: "...Most of his thoughts, his political 'ammunition,'...were carefully manufactured for him in advance by the CFR-One World Money group. Brilliantly... he exploded that prepared 'ammunition' in the middle of an unsuspecting target, the American people--and thus paid off and retained his internationalist political support."
Taking America off the gold standard in 1934, FDR opened the way to unrestrained money supply expansion, decades of inflation--and credit revenues for banks. Raising gold prices from $20 an ounce to $35, FDR and Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr. (son of a founding CFR member), gave international bankers huge profits.
FDR's most remembered program, the New Deal, could only be financed through heavy borrowing. In effect, those who had caused the Depression loaned America the money to recover from it. Then, through the National Recovery Administration, proposed by Bernard Baruch in 1930, they were put in charge of regulating the economy. FDR appointed Baruch disciple Hugh Johnson to run the NRA, assisted by CFR member Gerard Swope. With broad powers to regulate wages, prices, and working conditions, it was, as Herbert Hoover wrote in his memoirs: "...pure fascism;...merely a remaking of Mussolini's 'corporate state'..." The Supreme Court eventually ruled the NRA unconstitutional.
During the FDR years, the Council on Foreign Relations captured the political life of the U.S. Besides Treasury Secretary Morgenthau, other CFR members included Secretary of State Edward Stettinus, War Secretary Henry Stimson, and Assistant Secretary of State Sumner Welles.
Since 1934 almost every United States Secretary of State has been a CFR member; and ALL Secretaries of War or Defense, from Henry L. Stimson through Richard Cheney.
The CIA has been under CFR control almost continuously since its creation, starting with Allen Dulles, founding member of the CFR and brother of Secretary of State under President Eisenhower, John Foster Dulles. Allen Dulles had been at the Paris Peace Conference, joined the CFR in 1926, and later became its president.
John Foster Dulles had been one of Woodrow Wilson's young proteges at the Paris Peace Conference. A founding member of the CFR...he was an in-law of the Rockefellers, Chairman of the Board of the Rockefeller Foundation, and Board Chairman of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
In 1940 FDR defeated internationalist Wendell Willkie, who wrote a book entitled "One World," and later became a CFR member. Congressman Usher Burdick protested at the time on the floor of the House that Willkie was being financed by J.P. Morgan and the New York utility bankers. Polls showed few Republicans favored him, yet the media portrayed him as THE Republican candidate.
Since that time nearly ALL presidential candidates have been CFR members. President Truman, who was not a member, was advised by a group of "wise men," all six of whom were CFR members, according to Gary Allen. In 1952 and 1956, CFR Adlai Stevenson challenged CFR Eisenhower.
In 1960, CFR Kennedy (who was probably killed because he had the courage NOT to go along with all their plans) CFR Nixon. In 1964 the GOP stunned the Establishment by nominating its candidate over Nelson Rockefeller.
Rockefeller and the CFR wing proceeded to picture Barry Goldwater as a dangerous radical. In 1968 CFR Nixon ran against CFR Humphrey. The 1972 "contest" featured CFR Nixon vs. CFR McGovern.
CFR candidates for president include George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Edmund Muskie, John Anderson, and Lloyd Bentsen. In 1976 we had Jimmy Carter, who is a member of the Trilateral Commission, created by David Rockefeller and CFR member Zbigniew Brzezinski with the goal of economic linkage between Japan, Europe, and the United States, and: "...managing the world economy...a smooth and peaceful evolution of the global system." We have also had (though his name strangely disappears from the membership list in 1979) CFR director (1977-79) George Bush, and last but not least, CFR member Bill Clinton.
They have all promoted the "New World Order," controlled by the United Nations. The problem is that "...the present United Nations organization is actually the creation of the CFR and is housed on land in Manhattan donated to it by the family of current CFR chairman David Rockefeller," as Pat Robertson describes it.
The original concept for the UN was the outcome of the Informal Agenda Group, formed in 1943 by Secretary of State Cordell Hull. All except Hull were CFR members, and Isaiah Bowman, a founding member of the CFR, originated the idea.
The American delegation to the San Francisco meeting that drafted the charter of the United Nations in 1949 included CFR members Nelson Rockefeller, John Foster Dulles, John McCloy, and CFR members who were communist agents--Harry Dexter White, Owen Lattimore, and the Secretary-General of the conference, Alger Hiss. In all, the Council sent forty-seven of its members in the United States delegation, effectively controlling the outcome.
Since that time the CFR and its friends in the mass media (largely controlled by CFR members such as Katherine Graham of the "Washington Post" and Henry Luce of" Time, Life"), foundations, and political groups have lobbied consistently to grant the United Nations more authority and power. Bush and the Gulf War were but one of the latest calls for a "New World Order."
Admiral Chester Ward, a member of the CFR for over a decade, became one of its harshest critics, revealing its inner workings in a 1975 book, "Kissinger ON THE COUCH." In it he states "The most powerful cliques in these elitist groups have one objective in common: they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and national independence of the United States."
Most members are one-world-government ideologists whose long- term goals were officially summed up in September 1961 State Department Document 7277, adopted by the Nixon Administration: "...elimination of all armed forces and armaments except those needed to maintain internal order within states and to furnish the United Nations with peace forces...by the time it (UN global government) would be so strong no nation could challenge it."
Within the CFR there exists a "much smaller group but more powerful...made up of Wall Street international bankers and their key agents. Primarily, they want the world banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in control of the global government ...This CFR faction is headed by the Rockefeller brothers," according to Ward.
What must be remembered is that this is not some lunatic- fringe group...these are members of one of the most powerful private organizations in the world: the people who determine and control American economic, social, political, and military policy. Members' influence and control extends to "leaders in academia, public service, business, and the media," according to the CFR 1993 "Annual Report."
Their founding they describe as: "American Participants in the Paris Peace Conference decided that it was time for more private Americans to become familiar with the increasing responsibilities and obligations of the United States...there was a need for an organization able to provide for the continuous study of U.S. foreign police for the BENEFIT OF ITS MEMBERS (emphasis mine) and a wider audience of interested Americans."
They sponsor hundreds of programs, where members "exchange views with American and foreign officials and policy experts... discuss foreign policy issues...consider international issues of concern to the business community" (Corporate business), and "...affiliated groups of community leaders throughout the United states...meet with decision makers."
The CFR states that it is "host to many views, advocate of none," and it "has no affiliation with the U.S. government." No, no affiliation at all, if you don't count: "A Council member was elected president of the United States...Dozens of other Council colleagues were called to serve in cabinet and sub-cabinet positions," as they describe it in "Foreign Affairs," along with many members of Congress, the Supreme Court, the Joint Chiefs, the Federal Reserve, and many other Federal bureaucrats.
They are not AFFILIATED with government, they ARE the government, in effect.
One re-occurring view was stated in the 50th anniversary issue of "Foreign Affairs," the official publication of the CFR. In an article by Kingman Brewster, Jr. entitled "Reflections on Our National Purpose." Our purpose should be, according to him, to do away with our nationality, to "take some risks in order to invite others to pool their sovereignty with ours..."
These "risks" include disarming to the point where we would be helpless against the "peace-keeping" forces of a global UN government. We should happily surrender our sovereignty to the world government in the interests of the "world community."
Today we have the spectacle of Spc. 4 Michael New, a U.S. soldier in Germany who refuses to wear the uniform of the UN, facing an "administrative discharge." He states rightly that he swore an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution, not the United Nations. Many other Americans have taken that same oath, such as myself, and believe it is our sworn duty still to defend the Constitution, since an oath sworn before God must be fulfilled. (Why else do we swear to tell the truth in our courts, or when taking public office?) Is it a crime these days to actually BELIEVE in God and the oath that was taken?
Meanwhile, others who attempt to destroy the Constitution and our sovereignty are given honors and position...At least they are not hypocrites...only supremely arrogant.
"In short, the 'house of world order' will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down...An end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old fashioned assault..." in the opinion of Richard N. Gardner, former deputy assistant Secretary of State in "Foreign Affairs," April 1974.
James Warburg, son of CFR founder Paul Warburg, and a member of FDR's "brain trust," testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 17, 1950, "We shall have world government whether or not you like it--by conquest or consent."
Is this an AMERICAN speaking, or a dangerous lunatic? Who is this "We" who threatens to CONQUER us?
They are a group that actually has the power to do it, and is doing it every day, bit by bit.
CFR Members in the mass media, education, and entertainment push their propaganda of "humanism" and world brotherhood. We should all live in peace under a world government, and forget about such selfish things as nationalities and patriotism. We can solve our own problems. We don't need God, or morals, or values: it's all relative, anyway, right?...Because if we actually had some moral character and values, we might be able to discern that these people are actually EVIL.
The Bible says that the LOVE of money is the root of all evil (1 Tim. 6:10). These people are evil because they love money and power, and greed drives them to do anything to achieve their goals. They have lost all morality and conscience, and believe such concepts, as well as our Constitution, "outdated".
THAT is insanity--to have more wealth than can be spent, and still it is never enough. They have to control governments, start wars, conspire to rule the world; least the "common people" wake up to how they have gained their wealth, take it away from them, and demand that they pay the price for their crimes.
That is why they constantly pit us one against the other, with "Diversity," Affirmative Action, and other programs,...black against white, men against women, rural against urban, ranchers against environmentalists, and on and on...least we look in their direction.
We The People are held to a much higher standard. If we threaten the President or a public official, we are charged with a crime...yet the One-World-Gang can threaten the Constitution and the liberties of We The People, the sovereign rulers of this nation, and nothing is said or done.
Perhaps they do not fear what Man can do to them... they believe they have arranged everything, and their power and wealth will prevail in this world. However, those among them who have sworn an oath before God to uphold and defend the Constitution: the President, members of Congress, and the military; may find one day that they do indeed have something to fear.
Colonel House, the fallen angel, still has relatives controlling the CFR. Karen Elliot House is Chairman of the Membership Committee, and a member of the Nominating Committee, along with Jeane Kirkpatrick. David Rockefeller is now "Honorary Chairman of the Board", after serving as Chairman 1970-1985; and "Director Emeritus," after serving as a Director 1949-1985. Peter G. Peterson is Chairman, Admiral B. R. Inman is Vice Chairman, while Thomas Foley and Jeane Kirkpatrick are Directors serving on the Executive Committee.
These "private citizens" have access to government officials and policy makers as often as they wish, yet the results of their meetings can only be given to other government officials, corporate officers, or law partners. Participants are forbidden to transmit an attributed statement to any public medium, such as newspapers or TV, where there is "risk that it will promptly be widely circulated or published," as the "Annual Report" puts it.
Should not OUR public officials be forbidden to meet in secret with private groups? Public officials should only be allowed to discuss public business and policy in a public forum. The Public...remember US?
There is much more to say about this group and their plans for America. Gary Allen, in "The Rockefeller File," states that they are behind the many regional government plans, which would abolish city, county, and state lines, leaving us at the mercy of federal bureaucrats; and behind the push for "land use" controls. They want "federal control of everything. Since they intend to control the federal government..."
There are also the many allegations of involvement in gun running, drug smuggling, prostitution and sex slaves; and the many mysterious assassinations and "suicides" of witnesses and others who get too close to the truth...but that is another story.
This document may be freely distributed or quoted in any medium, provided credit is given to the author and The Courier. Copyright 1995
Hello all,
Please check out the commentary article of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram Newspaper's February 10th edition. This story was carried in several major publications throughout Texas and across the nation. This is one of the reasons why I support the concept of the 'Single Payer Health Care System'.
Of the leading presidential candidates, the only major candidate who has previously spoken in favor of and declared as a proponent of this system is Senator Barack Obama. As you make your choice for our next president, I urge you to consider the situation that so many of us throughout the country face as a result of rocketing insurance costs and denials of coverage.
http://origin.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/18327690.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
Thanks,
A Box of Rocks
The Doors Of Perception: Why Americans Will Believe Almost Anything
by Dr. Tim O'Shea
We are the most conditioned, programmed beings the world has ever known.
Not only are our thoughts and attitudes continually being shaped and
molded; our very awareness of the whole design seems like it is being
subtly and inexorably erased.
The doors of our perception are carefully and precisely regulated. Who
cares, right?
It is an exhausting and endless task to keep explaining to people how
most issues of conventional wisdom are scientifically implanted in the
public consciousness by a thousand media clips per day. In an effort to
save time, I would like to provide just a little background on the
handling of information in this country.
Once the basic principles are illustrated about how our current system
of media control arose historically, the reader might be more apt to
question any given story in today's news.
If everybody believes something, it's probably wrong. We call that
Conventional Wisdom.
In America, conventional wisdom that has mass acceptance is usually
contrived: somebody paid for it. Examples:
* Pharmaceuticals restore health
* Vaccination brings immunity
* The cure for cancer is just around the corner
* When a child is sick, he needs immediate antibiotics
* When a child has a fever he needs Tylenol
* Hospitals are safe and clean.
* America has the best health care in the world.
* And many many more
This is a list of illusions, that have cost billions and billions to
conjure up. Did you ever wonder why you never see the President speaking
publicly unless he is reading? Or why most people in this country think
generally the same about most of the above issues?
How This Set-Up Got Started
In Trust Us We're Experts, Stauber and Rampton pull together some
compelling data describing the science of creating public opinion in
America.
They trace modern public influence back to the early part of the last
century, highlighting the work of guys like Edward L. Bernays, the
Father of Spin. From his own amazing chronicle Propaganda, we learn how
Edward L. Bernays took the ideas of his famous uncle Sigmund Freud
himself, and applied them to the emerging science of mass persuasion.
The only difference was that instead of using these principles to
uncover hidden themes in the human unconscious, the way Freudian
psychology does, Bernays used these same ideas to mask agendas and to
create illusions that deceive and misrepresent, for marketing purposes.
The Father Of Spin
Bernays dominated the PR industry until the 1940s, and was a significant
force for another 40 years after that. (Tye) During all that time,
Bernays took on hundreds of diverse assignments to create a public
perception about some idea or product. A few examples:
As a neophyte with the Committee on Public Information, one of Bernays'
first assignments was to help sell the First World War to the American
public with the idea to "Make the World Safe for Democracy." (Ewen)
A few years later, Bernays set up a stunt to popularize the notion of
women smoking cigarettes. In organizing the 1929 Easter Parade in New
York City, Bernays showed himself as a force to be reckoned with.
He organized the Torches of Liberty Brigade in which suffragettes
marched in the parade smoking cigarettes as a mark of women's
liberation. Such publicity followed from that one event that from then
on women have felt secure about destroying their own lungs in public,
the same way that men have always done.
Bernays popularized the idea of bacon for breakfast.
Not one to turn down a challenge, he set up the advertising format along
with the AMA that lasted for nearly 50 years proving that cigarettes are
beneficial to health. Just look at ads in issues of Life or Time from
the 40s and 50s.
Smoke And Mirrors
Bernay's job was to reframe an issue; to create a desired image that
would put a particular product or concept in a desirable light. Bernays
described the public as a 'herd that needed to be led.' And this
herdlike thinking makes people "susceptible to leadership."
Bernays never deviated from his fundamental axiom to "control the masses
without their knowing it." The best PR happens with the people unaware
that they are being manipulated.
Stauber describes Bernays' rationale like this:
"the scientific manipulation of public opinion was necessary to
overcome chaos and conflict in a democratic society." Trust Us p 42
These early mass persuaders postured themselves as performing a moral
service for humanity in general - democracy was too good for people;
they needed to be told what to think, because they were incapable of
rational thought by themselves. Here's a paragraph from Bernays' Propaganda:
"Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society constitute an
invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We
are governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested
largely by men we have never heard of.
This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is
organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if
they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.
In almost every act of our lives whether in the sphere of politics or
business in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated
by the relatively small number of persons who understand the mental
processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the
wires that control the public mind."
Here Comes The Money
Once the possibilities of applying Freudian psychology to mass media
were glimpsed, Bernays soon had more corporate clients than he could
handle. Global corporations fell all over themselves courting the new
Image Makers. There were dozens of goods and services and ideas to be
sold to a susceptible public. Over the years, these players have had the
money to make their images happen. A few examples:
* Philip Morris
* Pfizer
* Union Carbide
* Allstate
* Monsanto
* Eli Lilly
* tobacco industry
* Ciba Geigy
* lead industry
* Coors
* DuPont
* Chlorox
* Shell Oil
* Standard Oil
* Procter & Gamble
* Boeing
* General Motors
* Dow Chemical
* General Mills
* Goodyear
The Players
Though world-famous within the PR industry, the companies have names we
don't know, and for good reason.
The best PR goes unnoticed.
For decades they have created the opinions that most of us were raised
with, on virtually any issue which has the remotest commercial value,
including:
* pharmaceutical drugs
* vaccines
* medicine as a profession
* alternative medicine
* fluoridation of city water
* chlorine
* household cleaning products
* tobacco
* dioxin
* global warming
* leaded gasoline
* cancer research and treatment
* pollution of the oceans
* forests and lumber
* images of celebrities, including damage control
* crisis and disaster management
* genetically modified foods
* aspartame
* food additives; processed foods
* dental amalgams
*
Lesson &035;1
Bernays learned early on that the most effective way to create
credibility for a product or an image was by "independent third-party"
endorsement.
For example, if General Motors were to come out and say that global
warming is a hoax thought up by some liberal tree-huggers, people would
suspect GM's motives, since GM's fortune is made by selling automobiles.
If however some independent research institute with a very credible
sounding name like the Global Climate Coalition comes out with a
scientific report that says global warming is really a fiction, people
begin to get confused and to have doubts about the original issue.
So that's exactly what Bernays did. With a policy inspired by genius, he
set up "more institutes and foundations than Rockefeller and Carnegie
combined." (Stauber p 45)
Quietly financed by the industries whose products were being evaluated,
these "independent" research agencies would churn out "scientific"
studies and press materials that could create any image their handlers
wanted. Such front groups are given high-sounding names like:
* Temperature Research Foundation
* Manhattan Institute
* International Food Information Council
* Center for Produce Quality
* Consumer Alert
* Tobacco Institute Research Council
* The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition
* Cato Institute
* Air Hygiene Foundation
* American Council on Science and Health
* Industrial Health Federation
* Global Climate Coalition
* International Food Information Council
* Alliance for Better Foods
Sound pretty legit don't they?
Canned News Releases
As Stauber explains, these organizations and hundreds of others like
them are front groups whose sole mission is to advance the image of the
global corporations who fund them, like those listed on page 2 above.
This is accomplished in part by an endless stream of 'press releases'
announcing "breakthrough" research to every radio station and newspaper
in the country. (Robbins) Many of these canned reports read like
straight news, and indeed are purposely molded in the news format.
This saves journalists the trouble of researching the subjects on their
own, especially on topics about which they know very little. Entire
sections of the release or in the case of video news releases, the whole
thing can be just lifted intact, with no editing, given the byline of
the reporter or newspaper or TV station - and voilá! Instant news - copy
and paste. Written by corporate PR firms.
Does this really happen? Every single day, since the 1920s when the idea
of the News Release was first invented by Ivy Lee. (Stauber, p 22)
Sometimes as many as half the stories appearing in an issue of the Wall
St. Journal are based solely on such PR press releases.. (22)
These types of stories are mixed right in with legitimately researched
stories. Unless you have done the research yourself, you won't be able
to tell the difference.
The Language Of Spin
As 1920s spin pioneers like Ivy Lee and Edward Bernays gained more
experience, they began to formulate rules and guidelines for creating
public opinion. They learned quickly that mob psychology must focus on
emotion, not facts. Since the mob is incapable of rational thought,
motivation must be based not on logic but on presentation. Here are some
of the axioms of the new science of PR:
* technology is a religion unto itself
* if people are incapable of rational thought, real democracy is
dangerous
* important decisions should be left to experts
* when reframing issues, stay away from substance; create images
* never state a clearly demonstrable lie
Words are very carefully chosen for their emotional impact. Here's an
example. A front group called the International Food Information Council
handles the public's natural aversion to genetically modified foods.
Trigger words are repeated all through the text. Now in the case of GM
foods, the public is instinctively afraid of these experimental new
creations which have suddenly popped up on our grocery shelves which are
said to have DNA alterations. The IFIC wants to reassure the public of
the safety of GM foods, so it avoids words like:
* Frankenfoods
* Hitler
* biotech
* chemical
* DNA
* experiments
* manipulate
* money
* safety
* scientists
* radiation
* roulette
* gene-splicing
* gene gun
* random
Instead, good PR for GM foods contains words like:
* hybrids
* natural order
* beauty
* choice
* bounty
* cross-breeding
* diversity
* earth
* farmer
* organic
* wholesome
It's basic Freudian/Tony Robbins word association. The fact that GM
foods are not hybrids that have been subjected to the slow and careful
scientific methods of real crossbreeding doesn't really matter. This is
pseudoscience, not science. Form is everything and substance just a
passing myth. (Trevanian)
Who do you think funds the International Food Information Council? Take
a wild guess. Right - Monsanto, DuPont, Frito-Lay, Coca Cola, Nutrasweet
- those in a position to make fortunes from GM foods. (Stauber p 20)
Characteristics Of Good Propaganda
As the science of mass control evolved, PR firms developed further
guidelines for effective copy. Here are some of the gems:
* dehumanize the attacked party by labeling and name calling
* speak in glittering generalities using emotionally positive words
* when covering something up, don't use plain English; stall for
time; distract
* get endorsements from celebrities, churches, sports figures,
street people - anyone who has no expertise in the subject at hand
* the 'plain folks' ruse: us billionaires are just like you
* when minimizing outrage, don't say anything memorable, point out
the benefits of what just happened, and avoid moral issues
Keep this list. Start watching for these techniques. Not hard to find -
look at today's paper or tonight's TV news. See what they're doing;
these guys are good!
Science For Hire
PR firms have become very sophisticated in the preparation of news
releases. They have learned how to attach the names of famous scientists
to research that those scientists have not even looked at. (Stauber, p 201)
This is a common occurrence. In this way the editors of newspapers and
TV news shows are often not even aware that an individual release is a
total PR fabrication. Or at least they have "deniability," right?
Stauber tells the amazing story of how leaded gas came into the picture.
In 1922, General Motors discovered that adding lead to gasoline gave
cars more horsepower.
When there was some concern about safety, GM paid the Bureau of Mines to
do some fake "testing" and publish spurious research that 'proved' that
inhalation of lead was harmless. Enter Charles Kettering.
Founder of the world famous Sloan-Kettering Memorial Institute for
medical research, Charles Kettering also happened to be an executive
with General Motors.
By some strange coincidence, we soon have the Sloan Kettering institute
issuing reports stating that lead occurs naturally in the body and that
the body has a way of eliminating low level exposure.
Through its association with The Industrial Hygiene Foundation and PR
giant Hill & Knowlton, Sloane Kettering opposed all anti-lead research
for years. (Stauber p 92). Without organized scientific opposition, for
the next 60 years more and more gasoline became leaded, until by the
1970s, 90% of our gasoline was leaded.
Finally it became too obvious to hide that lead was a major carcinogen,
and leaded gas was phased out in the late 1980s. But during those 60
years, it is estimated that some 30 million tons of lead were released
in vapor form onto American streets and highways. 30 million tons.
That is PR, my friends.
Junk Science
In 1993 a guy named Peter Huber wrote a new book and coined a new term.
The book was Galileo's Revenge and the term was junk science. Huber's
shallow thesis was that real science supports technology, industry, and
progress.
Anything else was suddenly junk science. Not surprisingly, Stauber
explains how Huber's book was supported by the industry-backed Manhattan
Institute.
Huber's book was generally dismissed not only because it was so poorly
written, but because it failed to realize one fact: true scientific
research begins with no conclusions. Real scientists are seeking the
truth because they do not yet know what the truth is.
True scientific method goes like this:
1. Form a hypothesis
2. Make predictions for that hypothesis
3. Test the predictions
4. Reject or revise the hypothesis based on the research findings
Boston University scientist Dr. David Ozonoff explains that ideas in
science are themselves like "living organisms, that must be nourished,
supported, and cultivated with resources for making them grow and
flourish." (Stauber p 205)
Great ideas that don't get this financial support because the commercial
angles are not immediately obvious - these ideas wither and die.
Another way you can often distinguish real science from phony is that
real science points out flaws in its own research. Phony science
pretends there were no flaws.
The Real Junk Science
Contrast this with modern PR and its constant pretensions to sound
science. Corporate sponsored research, whether it's in the area of
drugs, GM foods, or chemistry begins with predetermined conclusions.
It is the job of the scientists then to prove that these conclusions are
true, because of the economic upside that proof will bring to the
industries paying for that research. This invidious approach to science
has shifted the entire focus of research in America during the past 50
years, as any true scientist is likely to admit.
Stauber documents the increasing amount of corporate sponsorship of
university research. (206) This has nothing to do with the pursuit of
knowledge. Scientists lament that research has become just another
commodity, something bought and sold. (Crossen)
The Two Main Targets Of "Sound Science"
It is shocking when Stauber shows how the vast majority of corporate PR
today opposes any research that seeks to protect
* public health
* the environment
It's a funny thing that most of the time when we see the phrase "junk
science," it is in a context of defending something that may threaten
either the environment or our health.
This makes sense when one realizes that money changes hands only by
selling the illusion of health and the illusion of environmental
protection. True public health and real preservation of the earth's
environment have very low market value.
Stauber thinks it ironic that industry's self-proclaimed debunkers of
junk science are usually non-scientists themselves. (255) Here again
they can do this because the issue is not science, but the creation of
images.
The Language Of Attack
When PR firms attack legitimate environmental groups and alternative
medicine people, they again use special words which will carry an
emotional punch:
* outraged sound science
* junk science sensible
* scaremongering responsible
* phobia hoax
* alarmist hysteria
The next time you are reading a newspaper article about an environmental
or health issue, note how the author shows bias by using the above
terms. This is the result of very specialized training.
Another standard PR tactic is to use the rhetoric of the
environmentalists themselves to defend a dangerous and untested product
that poses an actual threat to the environment. This we see constantly
in the PR smokescreen that surrounds genetically modified foods.
They talk about how GM foods are necessary to grow more food and to end
world hunger, when the reality is that GM foods actually have lower
yields per acre than natural crops. (Stauber p 173)
The grand design sort of comes into focus once you realize that almost
all GM foods have been created by the sellers of herbicides and
pesticides so that those plants can withstand greater amounts of
herbicides and pesticides. (The Magic Bean)
Kill Your TV?
Hope this chapter has given you a hint to start reading newspaper and
magazine articles a little differently, and perhaps start watching TV
news shows with a slightly different attitude than you had before.
Always ask, what are they selling here, and who's selling it? And if you
actually follow up on Stauber & Rampton's book and check out some of the
other resources below, you might even glimpse the possibility of
advancing your life one quantum simply by ceasing to subject your brain
to mass media.
That's right - no more newspapers, no more TV news, no more Time
magazine or Newsweek. You could actually do that. Just think what you
could do with the extra time alone.
Really feel like you need to "relax" or find out "what's going on in the
world" for a few hours every day? Think about the news of the past
couple of years for a minute.
Do you really suppose the major stories that have dominated headlines
and TV news have been "what is going on in the world?" Do you actually
think there's been nothing going on besides the contrived tech slump,
the contrived power shortages, the re-filtered accounts of foreign
violence and disaster, and all the other non-stories that the puppeteers
dangle before us every day?
What about when they get a big one, like with OJ or Monica Lewinsky or
the Oklahoma city bombing? Do we really need to know all that detail,
day after day? Do we have any way of verifying all that detail, even if
we wanted to? What is the purpose of news?
To inform the public? Hardly. The sole purpose of news is to keep the
public in a state of fear and uncertainty so that they'll watch again
tomorrow and be subjected to the same advertising.
Oversimplification? Of course. That's the mark of mass media mastery -
simplicity. The invisible hand. Like Edward Bernays said, the people
must be controlled without them knowing it.
Consider this: what was really going on in the world all that time they
were distracting us with all that stupid vexatious daily smokescreen?
Fear and uncertainty -- that's what keeps people coming back for more.
If this seems like a radical outlook, let's take it one step further:
What would you lose from your life if you stopped watching TV and
stopped reading newspapers altogether?
Would your life really suffer any financial, moral, intellectual or
academic loss from such a decision?
Do you really need to have your family continually absorbing the
illiterate, amoral, phony, uncultivated, desperately brainless values of
the people featured in the average nightly TV program? Are these fake,
programmed robots "normal"?
Do you need to have your life values constantly spoon-fed to you?
Are those shows really amusing, or just a necessary distraction to keep
you from looking at reality, or trying to figure things out yourself by
doing a little independent reading?
Name one example of how your life is improved by watching TV news and
reading the evening paper.
What measurable gain is there for you?
Planet of the Apes?
There's no question that as a nation, we're getting dumber year by year.
Look at the presidents we've been choosing lately. Ever notice the
blatant grammar mistakes so ubiquitous in today's advertising and
billboards?
Literacy is marginal in most American secondary schools. Three fourths
of California high school seniors can't read well enough to pass their
exit exams. (SJ Mercury 20 Jul 01)
If you think other parts of the country are smarter, try this one: hand
any high school senior a book by Dumas or Jane Austen, and ask them to
open to any random page and just read one paragraph out loud. Go ahead,
do it. SAT scales are arbitrarily shifted lower and lower to disguise
how dumb kids are getting year by year.
At least 10% have documented "learning disabilities," which are
reinforced and rewarded by special treatment and special drugs. Ever
hear of anyone failing a grade any more?
Or observe the intellectual level of the average movie which these days
may only last one or two weeks in the theatres, especially if it has
insufficient explosions, chase scenes, silicone, fake martial arts, and
cretinesque dialogue.
Radio? Consider the low mental qualifications of the falsely animated
corporate simians they hire as DJs -- they're only allowed to have 50
thoughts, which they just repeat at random.
And at what point did popular music cease to require the study of any
musical instrument or theory whatsoever, not to mention lyric? Perhaps
we just don't understand this emerging art form, right? The Darwinism of
MTV - apes descended from man.
Ever notice how most articles in any of the glossy magazines sound like
they were all written by the same guy? And this guy just graduated from
junior college? And yet he has all the correct opinions on social
issues, no original ideas, and that shallow, smug, homogenized corporate
omniscience, which enables him to assure us that everything is going to
be fine...
All this is great news for the PR industry - makes their job that much
easier. Not only are very few paying attention to the process of
conditioning; fewer are capable of understanding it even if somebody
explained it to them.
Tea In the Cafeteria
Let's say you're in a crowded cafeteria, and you buy a cup of tea. And
as you're about to sit down you see your friend way across the room. So
you put the tea down and walk across the room and talk to your friend
for a few minutes.
Now, coming back to your tea, are you just going to pick it up and drink
it? Remember, this is a crowded place and you've just left your tea
unattended for several minutes. You've given anybody in that room access
to your tea.
Why should your mind be any different? Turning on the TV, or
uncritically absorbing mass publications every day - these activities
allow access to our minds by "just anyone" - anyone who has an agenda,
anyone with the resources to create a public image via popular media.
As we've seen above, just because we read something or see something on
TV doesn't mean it's true or worth knowing. So the idea here is, like
the tea, the mind is also worth guarding, worth limiting access to it.
This is the only life we get. Time is our total capital. Why waste it
allowing our potential, our personality, our values to be shaped,
crafted, and limited according to the whims of the mass panderers?
There are many important issues that are crucial to our physical,
mental, and spiritual well-being. If it's an issue where money is
involved, objective data won't be so easy to obtain. Remember, if
everybody knows something, that image has been bought and paid for.
Real knowledge takes a little effort, a little excavation down at least
one level below what "everybody knows."
References
Dr. Mercola's Comment:
One of the main reasons I publish my free health e-newsletter is to
provide you, the reader, with the truth -- without any connections to
any third party organizations, advertisers, etc. -- so you can weed
through much of the nonsense that the media throws at you and learn what
can REALLY help you and your loved ones fight and prevent disease and
enhance the quality and length of your life.
So much of what you hear about "healthcare" through the media is
manipulated or controlled by the pharmaceutical and other medical giants
who have mass profit, not your personal health, as their primary goal.
My free health e-newsletter has grown to over 250,000 subscribers because:
A) my vision and passion is to change the current healthcare system
to one focused on real prevention and cure versus the current Band-Aid
approach of drugs and surgeries that only patches things over, and I am
committed to providing you the TRUTH about health and medical news
toward that end
B) I am an internationally respected physician with over two decades
of experience developing a REAL health and dietary plan that has PROVEN
to help tens of thousands of my patients overcome chronic disease. The
point is, my passion and lifelong dedication has been to help people,
including the millions of readers of Mercola.com (now one of the world's
top-five most visited health websites), improve their health, whether
they are confronting some disease, illness, or weight issue or seeking
to improve already good health, and motives have EVERYTHING to do with
who you should trust with health advice. If you are interested learning
more about my dietary and health program, read more about my new book,
Dr. Mercola's Total Health Program, now. All of my profits, as you will
read, are going to a new non-profit organization dedicating to changing
the healthcare paradigm in the U.S. and beyond to one focused on real
prevention and cure versus the current drug-domination model fueling a
lot of hype that doesn't really help you.
| http://www.bragg.com/healthinfo/fluorideriskFS.html Don’t Drink the Water? Remember the great fluoride debate? Back in the 1950’s, every voice of authority, from the U.S. Public Health Service to the PTA, supported adding fluoride to the water supply as an effective and totally safe way to promote healthy teeth. The only opponents seemed to be John Birchers and other extremists who regarded the scheme as a diabolical communist plot. In the years since, most of the nation’s major cities fluoridated their water, and the issue appeared closed. No less an objective voice than Consumer Reports declared in 1978, “The survival of this fake controversy . . .represents one of the major triumphs of quackery over science in our generation.” In fact, the debate never ended. Now it may explode as never before, posing new challenges to medical dogma and giving parents one more thing to worry about. Government researchers have new evidence that casts doubt on the benefits of fluoridation and suggests that it is not without risk. The most incendiary results come from the National Toxicology Program (NTP), which in 1977 was ordered by Congress to determine whether fluoride causes cancer. This week NTP plans to release data showing that lab rats given fluoridated water had a higher rate of a rare bone cancer called osteosarcoma. According to a memo by the Environmental Protection Agency, “very preliminary data from recent health studies . . . indicate that fluoride may be a carcinogen.” Fluoridation proponents are already criticizing the NTP study, but it will be harder to discredit or ignore than hundreds of earlier experiments, varying in quality from around the world, that have linked fluoride to mottled teeth, skeletal damage, genetic defects and other ills. During the two-year experiment, rats and mice drank water with different levels of sodium fluoride. None of the animals drinking fluoride-free water developed cancer, nor did any of those drinking water with the lowest fluoride concentration, 11 parts per million (ppm). But of the 50 male rats consuming 45 ppm water, one developed osteosarcoma. Four of 80 male rats drinking 79 ppm fluoride developed osteosarcoma. No mice or female rats showed signs of bone cancer. Although the animals drank higher concentrations of fluoride than people, (the legal standard is 4 ppm), such megadosing is standard toxicological practice. It’s the only way to detect an effect without using an impossibly large number of test animals in lieu of the humans exposed to the substance. Although the final NTP report will not be released for months, several independent toxicologists find the results significant. Most important, the rats who did not drink fluoride did not get cancer, indicating that the malignancies are “not a fluke,” says EPA scientist William Marcus. | |||||||
| There is also a convincing relationship between dose and response: the more fluoride, the more cancers. Pathologist David Kaufman of the University of North Carolina warns that the rat data must be examined to see if the cancers appeared in the long bones | “Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not all time.” | of the arms and legs, as osteosarcomas do in humans, or in other places, which might make the results less relevant to people. Still, Kaufman says NTP data “make fluoride look like a weak carcinogen. It’s obviously something to worry about” | |||||
| – but not panic over. are about 900 cases of osteosarcoma in the United States annually; even if fluoride caused all of them – an impossibility – the lifetime risk to any individual from drinking fluoridate tap water would still be only about one in 5,000. Too crude: If fluoride causes bone cancer in lab rats, then why, after 45 years of fluoridation, haven’t researchers seen a rash of osteosarcomas in fluoridated cities? Because epidemiology is too crude to detect it even if the cancers are there. In the 1970’s, the National Cancer Institute found no sign of higher cancer rates in fluoridated cities. But that reassuring finding may be misleading. According to Donald Taves, a fluoride expert, if the difference were anything less than 7 percent it would not be detectable. Another obstacle to definitive epidemiology is mobility: just because a person got osteosarcoma in a fluoridated city does not mean he had been living there all his life. The NTP results assume an added importance when combined with recent data on the shrinking benefits of fluoridation. According to the American Dental Association (ADA), tooth decay is anywhere from 50 to 70 percent less in fluoridated areas. But figures from the National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR), part of the National Institutes of Health, suggest otherwise. A 1987 survey of almost 40,000 schoolchildren found that tooth decay had declined sharply everywhere. Children who always lived in fluoridated areas had 18 percent less decay, compared with their peers who had lived in nonfluoridated areas. This 18 percent translates into a difference of fewer than one cavity per child. Similarly, in a 1986 paper in the British journal Nature, Australian researcher Mark Diesendorf assessed 24 studies from eight countries and found that cavity rates had declined equally in fluoridated and nonfluoridated areas, suggesting fluoridated water isn't that important! As a result of all these past and current studies, argues Alan Gray, a leading pro-fluoridation dentist in Canada, "it is now becoming difficult to provide accurate, and ethical advice" to people about fluoridation.
Fluoridation is unique among environmental controversies, in that one side has consistently denied that questions of risk or benefit even exist. The ADA states, "Anti-fluoridation groups attempt to create the illusion of a scientific controversy (which is ) merely a ploy to create doubt about a well-researched, well-demonstrated preventive measure." But even well-researched articles raise hackles. When, in 1988, Chemical & Engineering News presented a balanced report on fluoridation, it attracted the wrath of the medical establishment. Says Taves, "Too many scientists lost their objectivity. This has become a religion on both sides." The NIDR kept files on people perceived as threats to fluoridation. Political decisions were at odds with expert advice: a panel convened by the Surgeon General even in 1983 expressed concern, in closed sessions, about skeletal and dental damage from fluoride. At one point, a member said, "You would have to have rocks in your head, in my opinion, to allow your child much more than 2 ppm (fluoride)." Said another, "I think we all agree on that." Even so, in 1986 EPA raised the fluoride standard from 2 to 4ppm, except in Calif. where it remains 2ppm.
This month EPA opened a review of the standard. Once EPA receives the official NTP report, it will establish a target "safe" fluoride level. The Safe Drinking Water Act requires the level for carcinogens be zero, but the standard may be based on what is technically feasible. Fluoridation can be stopped immediately, but many communities with naturally fluoridated water would have to take out the fluoride if it exceeded the limit of 4 ppm. As the EPA wrestles with standards, John Sullivan of the American Water Works Association fears, "confusion will reign" since some laws will still require fluoridation, a practice many claim causes cancer! As they await EPA’s decision, pro-fluoridationists are invoking arguments of social justice. Dental researcher Ernest Newbrun of the University of California, San Francisco, contends that fluoridation promotes the health of children of “all races and all socioeconomic classes,” not only those with enough money or discipline or access to the health system to take a fluoride supplement every day. He and others say it is morally wrong not to provide the benefits of fluoride. The NIDR’s and other's surveys suggest that fluoride in toothpastes and dental rinses also ensures healthy teeth for those who use the fluoride products, they imply that those who don't use them might suffer. No one can foresee how the fluoride debate will play out this time. But since the 1950’s, the country’s environmental consciousness has been heightened. In the end, deciding whether or not to fluoridate turns less on science than on values. The sheer weight of good research may finally, after four decades, begin to wisely inform those judgments and even overwhelm the unscientific rhetoric that has characterized both sides of the debate for far too long. – SHARON BEGLEY FLASH – LATEST INFO! Visit Web For Fluoridation News: • www.Keepers-of-the-Well.org Excerpts from the Bragg Water Book J. William Hirzy, Ph.D., Senior Vice-President of the National Federation of Federal Employees stated in a letter, July 2,1997 to Jeff Green, of Citizens for Safe Drinking Water, “I am pleased to report that our union, which represents and is comprised of the scientists, lawyers, engineers and other professionals at the headquarters in Washington, D.C. of the US Environmental Protection Agency, has voted to co-sponsor the California Citizen’s Petition to prohibit fluoridation. The evidence over the last 11 years indicates a causal link between fluoride and cancer, genetic damage, neurological impairment, bone pathology and lower IQ in children. We conclude that the health and welfare of the public is NOT served by the addition of fluoride to the public water supply!” • Some fruit juices contain shocking amounts of fluoride, with some brands of grape juice containing much higher levels – up to a highly toxic 6.8 ppm! The use of fluoride-containing insecticides in grape crops is a factor in these high levels. Cooking can greatly increase a food’s fluoride content. Also, keep in mind that toxic fluoride is also an ingredient in pharmaceuticals, aerosols, insecticides and pesticides. Common fluoride levels in toothpaste are 1000 ppm. When fluoride is ingested, about 93% is absorbed into the bloodstream and what is not excreted is deposited in the bones and teeth of the body – Shocking Facts! • Fluoride use is toxic, absolutely unsafe and should be stopped immediately! The government feels that its central concern is to protect industry, therefore the solution to pollution is dilution! You poison everyone a little bit rather than poison a few people a lot. This way, people don’t know what’s going on. Any public health official who criticizes the practice of toxic fluoridation is at risk of losing his job. Shocking: National Toxicology Program Researchers downgraded cancers caused by fluoridation after being coerced by superiors to change their shocking, truthful findings. • Fluoride has been proven to cause osteosarcoma, a rare bone cancer; squamous cell carcinoma in the mouth; fluorosis of the teeth; osteosclerosis of the long bones; liver cancer; chromosome aberrations; genetic damage; and skeletal fluorosis and deformities. B. Spittle, author of Psychopharmacology of fluoride: a review states “There appears to be evidence that chronic exposure to fluoride may be linked with cerebral impairment that affects particularly the concentration and memory in some individuals.” More Fluoride Warnings: • The overwhelming evidence shows that fluoridation is causing an increase in bone cancer and deaths among males under 20. • According to our estimates, over 10,000 people in the United States die of cancer each year due to fluoridation of public drinking water. • Hip Fracture Rate Highest in U.S. • Fluoride and Osteoporosis • Fluoride and Bone Cancer • The Deadly Costs of Fluoridation • Fluoridated Water Increases Bone Cancer Risk • Osteoporosis, Calcium and Fluoride • The Overwhelming Evidence that Fluoride Weakens Bones • Fluoride Actually Reduces Bone Strength, Instead of Increasing It! • How The EPA is Spending Your Tax Dollars
• Why Do Researchers Continue to Support Deadly Fluoridation? • Fluoride: Shocking Facts • Fluoridation: A Health Violation of Medical Ethics • Fluoride: Industrial Waste • Environmental Protection Agency Infighting • Fluoridation is Big Business • Mohawk Indians’ Fluoride Tragedy • Fluoride is Highly Toxic • Use Non-Fluoride Toothpaste • Fluoridation Increases Lead Contamination • Fluoride Affects Immune Function • Fluoride Adversely Affects Central Nervous System • Fluoride and Decreasing Birth Rates • Highly Publicized Fluoride Studies Show Medical Mistake • Juice Drinks Contain Dangerous Levels of Fluoride • Danger is Not Only in The Water, but in Processed Foods • Tooth Decay Decline Unrelated to Fluoride • The Sad, Unnecessary Epidemic of Dental Fluorosis • H. Dean Changes His Mind and Retracts Fluoridation Endorsement! • Study Reveals That Fluoride Causes Tooth Decay • Children Poisoned by Toothpaste Keep Toxic Fluoride Out of Your Water! Most water Americans drink has fluoride in it, including tap, bottled and canned drinks and foods! Now, ADA (American Dental Assoc.) is insisting that the FDA mandate the addition of fluoride to all bottled waters! Defend your right to drink pure, nonfluoridated tap and bottled waters! Challenge and stop local and state water fluoridation policies! Call, write, fax or e-mail your state officials and congress people and send them a copy of this revealing book. | |||||||
