"Meno male che la popolazione non capisce il nostro sistema bancario e monetario,
perché se lo capisse, credo che prima di domattina scoppierebbe una rivoluzione."
"It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system,
for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford
<< clicca qui per continuare ed entrare nel sito >>
La
Ford Motor Company fu attiva
nella ricostruzione della Germania prima della seconda guerra mondiale.
Nel 1938, ad esempio, aveva aperto un grande stabilimento di
assemblamento di autocarri a Berlino. Nel luglio di quell'anno, Henry
Ford ricevette l'onoreficienza della Gran Croce dell'Aquila Tedesca (Grosskreuz des Deutschen Adlerordens).
Ford fu il primo americano e il quarto in assoluto a ricevere
quella onoreficienza che era stata conferita poco prima a Benito
Mussolini. L'onoreficienza venne conferita a Ford "per l'attività pioneristica svolta
nel rendere le automobili accessibili alle masse". Il premio
venne accompagnato da un messaggio personale di congratulazioni da
parte di Adolf Hitler. [dal quotidiano Detroit News del 31 Luglio 1938]
Henry Ford, al centro nella foto, viene premiato con la Gran Croce dell'Aquila Tedesca da diplomatici del terzo Reich [Foto AP]
Negli anni
'20 e '30 del secolo scorso, molte grandi industrie (IBM, FORD,
THYSSEN,
IG Farben, etc. etc.) vedevano nelle politiche socio-economiche del
partito nazional-socialista dei lavoratori tedesco, la speranza di
potersi svincolare dal giogo usuraio dei grandi banchieri
internazionali che avevano portato al disastro della crisi economica
del 1929. La storia che segue (vedi link sopra) dimostra - se mai
ve ne fosse bisogno - a
cosa porta l'asservimento al sistema bancario subito ancor oggi da un
grande gruppo multinazionale: "La FORD ITALIA fatturava tutti gli
autoveicoli che uscivano dalla fabbrica considerandoli venduti, ma
questi autoveicoli non erano venduti perchè rimanevano di
proprietà della Ford fino a che i vari concessionari non li
avessero realmente pagati. Però dall'uscita dalla fabbrica
dell'autovettura al reale pagamento della stessa da parte del
concessionario potevano passare da alcuni mesi ad un anno di tempo.
Fino ad allora il mezzo rimaneva comunque di proprietà della
casa madre anche se era stato fatturato un anno prima. Facevano false
fatturazioni per gonfiare i bilanci e facevano iscrivere nella Centrale
Rischi i concessionari, nonostante fosse la stessa FORD a scontare le
fatture presso la FORD CREDIT EUROPE BANK. I concessionari si trovavano
perciò tagliati fuori dalle linee di credito e, pure dopo aver
cessato il rapporto con FORD, non potevano usarle per cominciare
eventuali altre attività. Una serie impressionante di reati
passati sotto silenzio..."
The
supranationals have now completely forsaken their leadership in the
once-upon-a-long-ago-time, prohumanity, industrial mass-production,
gained exclusively through individual inventive ingenuity, integrity,
and local community pride in producing only the best possible products,
as does Japan today. Such was the leadership of Henry Ford, Sr., who
was inspired to mass-produce nofrills, reliable motor vehicles for the
lowest possible prices primarily to help the farmer get to market. That
his activity involved large amounts of money was only incidental. It
was obvious to Ford that a prudent amount of earnings must be set aside
to buy ever-improving equipment. Also, he determined that a
safety-factor surplus be set aside against poor economic days. Ford's
enterprise was never to make money." At enormous expense he bought back
all the shares in his Ford Motor Company from his original backers,
whom he found were primarily interested in making money. Henry, Sr.,
fought J. P. Morgan for many years as to which it should be, "make
sense or make money," which are mutually exclusive. Ford's son and
grandson failed to understand old Henry's inspirational philosophy of
real-wealth producing and learned to play only the game of moneymaking
with the money they inherited.
- Buckminster Fuller, Grunch of Giants, ST. MARTIN'S PRESS, New York, 1982
- Buckminster Fuller, Grunch of Giants, ST. MARTIN'S PRESS, New York, 1982
Les abus du
capitalisme - Thomas Edison, autodidacte comme Maurice Allais,
explique.
Pourquoi le gouvernement devrait-il payer un intérêt à un système bancaire privé pour l'usage de sa propre monnaie, qu'il peut émettre lui-même, sans intérêt?
C'est exactement ce que les créditistes du journal Vers Demain soutiennent, lorsqu'ils demandent au gouvernement fédéral de reprendre son pouvoir de créer l'argent du pays. L'inventeur américain Thomas Edison, qui était loin d'être un fou (quoique n'ayant fréquenté l'école que 3 mois, il comptait plus de 1000 brevets d'inventions à son actif), est aussi d'accord avec cette demande des créditistes. Voici ce qu'il disait dans une interview publiée dans le New York Times en 1928, alors qu'il était de retour d'une inspection à la centrale électrique en construction Muscle Shoals, sur la rivière Tennessee:
"Si la monnaie est émise par la nation, 30 millions $ pour le financement de Muscle Shoals, ce sera la bonne chose à faire. Une fois cette méthode d'émettre l'argent pour les développements publics essayée, le pays ne retournera jamais à la méthode des obligations...
"Maintenant, il y a (Henry) Ford qui propose de financer Muscle Shoals par une émission de monnaie (au lieu d'obligations). Très bien, supposons un instant que le Congrès suit sa proposition. Personnellement, je ne pense pas que le Congrès ait assez d'imagination pour le faire, mais supposons qu'il l'ait. La somme requise est émise directement par le gouvernement, comme toute monnaie doit l'être.
"Lorsque les travailleurs sont payés, ils reçoivent ces billets des États-Unis. A l'exception peut-être que ces billets porteraient la gravure d'un barrage au lieu d'un train ou d'un bateau, comme certains billets de la Réserve fédérale l'ont, ils seront la même chose que n'importe quel autre numéraire émis par le gouvernement, c'est-à-dire, ils seront de l'argent.
"Ils seront basés sur la richesse publique existant déjà à Muscle Shoals; ils seront retirés de la circulation par les salaires et bénéfices de la centrale électrique. C'est-à-dire le peuple des États-Unis recevra tout ce qu'il a mis dans Muscle Shoals et tout ce qu'il pourra y mettre durant des siècles... le pouvoir sans fin de la rivière Tennessee... sans taxes et sans augmentation de la dette nationale.
Mais supposez que le Congrès n'y voit pas, qu'arrivera-t-il? demanda-t-on à Edison.
"Alors, le Congrès doit retourner à l'ancienne méthode. Il doit autoriser une émission d'obligations. C'est-à-dire, il doit aller chez les prêteurs d'argent et emprunter assez de notre propre monnaie nationale pour achever ces travaux, et nous devons payer de l'intérêt aux prêteurs d'argent pour l'usage de notre propre argent.
"C'est-à-dire, sous l'ancienne manière, chaque fois que nous voulons augmenter la richesse nationale, nous sommes forcés d'augmenter la dette nationale.
"C'est ce qu'Henry Ford veut empêcher. Il pense que c'est stupide, et je le pense aussi, que pour le prêt de 30 millions de son propre argent, le peuple des États-Unis soit obligé de payer 66 millions le montant total à payer avec les intérêts. Des gens qui n'ont pas levé une pelle de terre ni contribué pour une seule livre de matériel vont ramasser plus d'argent des États-Unis que le peuple qui a fourni les matériaux et le travail.
"C'est ce qui est terrible avec l'intérêt. Dans toutes nos importantes émissions d'obligations, l'intérêt à payer est toujours plus gros que le capital. Tous nos grands travaux publics coûtent plus de deux fois le coût réel. Tout le problème est là.
"Si notre nation peut émettre une obligation d'une valeur d'un dollar, elle peut émettre un billet d'un dollar. L'élément qui fait que l'obligation est bonne est le même qui fait que le dollar est bon. La différence entre l'obligation et le dollar est que l'obligation permet aux prêteurs d'argent de ramasser 2 fois le montant de l'obligation plus un 20 pour cent additionnel, alors que l'argent mis en circulation ne paye que ceux qui ont directement contribué à la construction du barrage de quelque manière utile...
"Il est absurde de dire que notre pays peut émettre 30 millions $ en obligations, et pas 30 millions $ en monnaie. Les deux sont des promesses de payer, mais l'un engraisse les usuriers, et l'autre aiderait le peuple. Si l'argent émis par le gouvernement n'était pas bon, alors, les obligations ne seraient pas bonnes non plus. C'est une situation terrible lorsque le gouvernement, pour augmenter la richesse nationale, doit s'endetter et se soumettre à payer des intérêts ruineux à des hommes qui contrôlent la valeur fictive de l'or."
Pourquoi le gouvernement devrait-il payer un intérêt à un système bancaire privé pour l'usage de sa propre monnaie, qu'il peut émettre lui-même, sans intérêt?
C'est exactement ce que les créditistes du journal Vers Demain soutiennent, lorsqu'ils demandent au gouvernement fédéral de reprendre son pouvoir de créer l'argent du pays. L'inventeur américain Thomas Edison, qui était loin d'être un fou (quoique n'ayant fréquenté l'école que 3 mois, il comptait plus de 1000 brevets d'inventions à son actif), est aussi d'accord avec cette demande des créditistes. Voici ce qu'il disait dans une interview publiée dans le New York Times en 1928, alors qu'il était de retour d'une inspection à la centrale électrique en construction Muscle Shoals, sur la rivière Tennessee:
"Si la monnaie est émise par la nation, 30 millions $ pour le financement de Muscle Shoals, ce sera la bonne chose à faire. Une fois cette méthode d'émettre l'argent pour les développements publics essayée, le pays ne retournera jamais à la méthode des obligations...
"Maintenant, il y a (Henry) Ford qui propose de financer Muscle Shoals par une émission de monnaie (au lieu d'obligations). Très bien, supposons un instant que le Congrès suit sa proposition. Personnellement, je ne pense pas que le Congrès ait assez d'imagination pour le faire, mais supposons qu'il l'ait. La somme requise est émise directement par le gouvernement, comme toute monnaie doit l'être.
"Lorsque les travailleurs sont payés, ils reçoivent ces billets des États-Unis. A l'exception peut-être que ces billets porteraient la gravure d'un barrage au lieu d'un train ou d'un bateau, comme certains billets de la Réserve fédérale l'ont, ils seront la même chose que n'importe quel autre numéraire émis par le gouvernement, c'est-à-dire, ils seront de l'argent.
"Ils seront basés sur la richesse publique existant déjà à Muscle Shoals; ils seront retirés de la circulation par les salaires et bénéfices de la centrale électrique. C'est-à-dire le peuple des États-Unis recevra tout ce qu'il a mis dans Muscle Shoals et tout ce qu'il pourra y mettre durant des siècles... le pouvoir sans fin de la rivière Tennessee... sans taxes et sans augmentation de la dette nationale.
Mais supposez que le Congrès n'y voit pas, qu'arrivera-t-il? demanda-t-on à Edison.
"Alors, le Congrès doit retourner à l'ancienne méthode. Il doit autoriser une émission d'obligations. C'est-à-dire, il doit aller chez les prêteurs d'argent et emprunter assez de notre propre monnaie nationale pour achever ces travaux, et nous devons payer de l'intérêt aux prêteurs d'argent pour l'usage de notre propre argent.
"C'est-à-dire, sous l'ancienne manière, chaque fois que nous voulons augmenter la richesse nationale, nous sommes forcés d'augmenter la dette nationale.
"C'est ce qu'Henry Ford veut empêcher. Il pense que c'est stupide, et je le pense aussi, que pour le prêt de 30 millions de son propre argent, le peuple des États-Unis soit obligé de payer 66 millions le montant total à payer avec les intérêts. Des gens qui n'ont pas levé une pelle de terre ni contribué pour une seule livre de matériel vont ramasser plus d'argent des États-Unis que le peuple qui a fourni les matériaux et le travail.
"C'est ce qui est terrible avec l'intérêt. Dans toutes nos importantes émissions d'obligations, l'intérêt à payer est toujours plus gros que le capital. Tous nos grands travaux publics coûtent plus de deux fois le coût réel. Tout le problème est là.
"Si notre nation peut émettre une obligation d'une valeur d'un dollar, elle peut émettre un billet d'un dollar. L'élément qui fait que l'obligation est bonne est le même qui fait que le dollar est bon. La différence entre l'obligation et le dollar est que l'obligation permet aux prêteurs d'argent de ramasser 2 fois le montant de l'obligation plus un 20 pour cent additionnel, alors que l'argent mis en circulation ne paye que ceux qui ont directement contribué à la construction du barrage de quelque manière utile...
"Il est absurde de dire que notre pays peut émettre 30 millions $ en obligations, et pas 30 millions $ en monnaie. Les deux sont des promesses de payer, mais l'un engraisse les usuriers, et l'autre aiderait le peuple. Si l'argent émis par le gouvernement n'était pas bon, alors, les obligations ne seraient pas bonnes non plus. C'est une situation terrible lorsque le gouvernement, pour augmenter la richesse nationale, doit s'endetter et se soumettre à payer des intérêts ruineux à des hommes qui contrôlent la valeur fictive de l'or."
A
CLOSER LOOK TO THE FORD FOUNDATION
By Dennis L. Cuddy, NewsWithViews.com, April-May 2008
...In past columns I’ve written about Rhodes, Rockefeller and Carnegie, but this article will take a close look at the Ford Foundation, which was founded in 1936. In that same year, Dyke Brown, who would become the Foundation’s first vice-president, became a Rhodes Scholar (named for Cecil Rhodes who formed a secret society ‘to take the government of the whole world”). Brown would help to write “The Gaither Report,” named for Ford Foundation president H. Rowan Gaither, who in 1953 told Norman Dodd (staff director of the Congressional Special Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations) that at the executive level of the Foundation they were operating under directives from the White House “the substance (of which) was to the effect that we should make every effort to so alter life in the United States as to make possible a comfortable merger with the Soviet Union.” Another Rhodes Scholar, Don Price (who would author AMERICA’S UNWRITTEN CONSTITUTION), would be Foundation vice-president from 1954-1958. Price would then be, from 1961-1971, a trustee of the Rand Corporation, which had H. Rowan Gaither as its chairman from 1948 until 1961 when Gaither died.
During this same period, from 1951-1954, Robert Hutchins was associate director of the Ford Foundation, as it gave 15 million dollars to set up the leftist Fund for the Republic (Hutchins would be chief executive of the Fund from 1954-1974 and its president from 1975-1977). Two years before 1951, Hutchins, along with G. A. Borgese and Walter T. Paepcke, founded the Aspen Institute for Humanist Studies (which has received major funding from the Ford Foundation) in 1949. Then, in 1951, the Ford Foundation created the leftist Fund for the Advancement of Education, which assisted Mortimer Adler (who was taught philosophy at Columbia University by John Dewey, and who had supported the concept of a World Socialist Government). In June 1952, Adler announced plans to found the leftist Institute for Philosophical Research, which has received grants from the Ford Foundation. And in 1953, Hutchins (who as president of the University of Chicago had brought Adler there) authored CONFLICT IN EDUCATION IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY, in which he stated, “I am in favor of world government.”
That Hutchins supported world government had already been apparent from the University of Chicago Press’s 1948 publication of PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF A WORLD CONSTITUTION while Hutchins was chancellor of the University. It was produced by Hutchins, Mortimer Adler, Rexford Tugwell, and others, and advocated regional federation on the way toward the world federation of government. One commentator said the draft “does not contain a single paragraph that would run counter to socialism.” The “constitution’s” preamble contained the words “the governments of the nations have decided to order their separate sovereignties in one government of justice to which they surrender their arms; and to establish, as they do establish, this constitution as the covenant and fundamental law of the Federal Republic of the World.” The “constitution” itself also provided the world government with sweeping powers such as “the appropriation, under the right of eminent domain, of such private or public property as may be necessary for federal use.”
The same year as Ford Foundation’s president Gaither’s statement (quoted above) was made to Norman Dodd (1953), the Foundation established the Center for the Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences (which would receive 6 million dollars from the Foundation in 1969) with Dr. Ralph Tyler as its first director (Tyler has said “the real purpose of education is… to bring about significant changes in the student’s pattern or behavior,” and he served as the Center’s director until 1967, and was also chairman of the Carnegie Corporation’s Committee on Assessing the Progress of Education, which would become the National Assessment of Educational Progress, NAEP). Also in 1953, John J. McCloy (Council on Foreign Relations Chairman 1953-1970) would become chairman of the Ford Foundation until 1965, and in 1956 said, “In my view we must be ready to consider the most far-reaching proposals, including those for total disarmament, universal, enforceable and complete with international inspection.”
In January of 1957, Dennis Healey (who would be Britain’s Labor Minister of Defense 1964-1970) and others decided to set up a strategic think-tank. Healey had met Shepherd Stone, head of the social and political part of the Ford Foundation at a meeting of the Bilderberg group in Fiuggi, Italy, and Stone was interested in the idea. By the end of 1958, the think-tank, the Institute for Strategic Studies, had begun its work with the Ford Foundation contributing $150,000 over three years. By 1958, the Ford Foundation had also initiated grants in its programs in the behavioral sciences and mental health totaling over $21 million. The next year, the Foundation encouraged Mrs. J. Dickerman Hollister to found the syncretistic Temple of Understanding (the original idea for the temple was Mrs. Hollister’s, but the name for the temple was suggested by Mrs. Ellsworth Bunker, wife of the American ambassador to India). In 1960, the Temple was founded with partial funding by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
The next year (1961), Terrell Bell (future U.S. Secretary of Education who would support a proposal that would put Outcome-based Education in all schools) received his doctorate as a Ford Foundation fellow. The Ford Foundation would also support the Institute for Educational Leadership founded in 1964. That same year, the Committee on Assessing the Progress of Education, mentioned earlier, began its work and was funded by the Ford Foundation along with the Carnegie Corporation (they both financed ECAPE, Exploratory Committee on Assessing the Progress of Education, beginning in 1966). Also, in 1964, SIECUS (Sex Information and Education Council of the U.S.), which has supported the use of pornography, began to receive major funding from the Ford Foundation (which would also fund Catholics for a Free Choice and provide major funding for Planned Parenthood).
In 1965, the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions (CSDI) authored A CONSTITUTION FOR THE WORLD. The “constitution” was published by the Fund for the Republic (set up by the Ford Foundation), which had established the CSDI in 1959. And the CSDI also published a “modern” constitution for the U.S. in 1970. McGeorge Bundy (member of Skull & Bones, the CFR, and special assistant for National Security Affairs to J.F.K and L.B.J., 1961-1966) became president of the Ford Foundation in 1966 (remaining in that position until 1979, and becoming Scholar-in-Residence at the Carnegie Corporation in 1992). The next year (1967), Ford Foundation trustee Kermit Gordon (Rhodes Scholar, C.F.R. member and Keynesian economist) would become president of the Brookings Institution.
In 1968, Paul Ehrlich’s POPULATION BOMB, financed by the Ford Foundation and advocating population control, was published (in fiscal 1982 alone, the Ford Foundation spent 10.2 million dollars on population control). In this same year (1968), the Center for Educational Research and Innovation was created by the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) with the help of grants from the Ford Foundation and the Royal Dutch/Shell group of companies. The Center would print ALTERNATIVE EDUCATIONAL FUTURES IN THE UNITED STATES AND IN EUROPE (1972) in which New Age networker Willis Harman (Stanford University Research Institute, Planetary Citizens, and the Institute of Noetic Sciences) would assert: “It is not enough to be intellectually aware that at this point in history nationalism is a suicidal course…. Educational experiences must be contemplated which are akin to psychotherapy… that result in a felt realization of the inevitability of one inseparable world, and a felt shift in the most basic values and premises on which one builds one’s life. In a sense this means bringing something like ‘person-changing technology’ into the educational system (e.g., meditation, hypnosis, sensitivity training, psychodrama, yoga, etc.).”
Another “values-changing” leader supported by the Ford Foundation was Abraham Maslow, father of Third Force Humanistic Psychology (and a founder of the Association of Humanistic Psychology in 1962). In the second edition of Maslow’s TOWARD A PSYCHOLOGY OF BEING (1968, with a single left eye on the cover), he said: “I wish to acknowledge the fellowship given me by the Ford Foundation’s Fund for the Advancement of Education.” The Foundation’s fellowship was for a year to reflect upon and write about humanistic education, some of the results of which Maslow had published in “Some Educational Implications of the Humanistic Psychologies” (HARVARD EDUCATIONAL REVIEW, Fall 1968). The next year, PACE magazine (December 1969) published an interview with Maslow (president of the American Psychological Association at the time) in which he pronounced: “Young people are looking for the kind of certainties that the religions and traditions used to give them. Now the religions have cracked up, the traditions have cracked up. It is not only God is Dead but Marx is Dead and Freud and Dead and Darwin is Dead. They have no sources of values to go by. So they have to work everything out for themselves. This new humanistic revolution has an alternative source of values.”
The next year, on June 8, 1970, Maslow died, and about the same time, NEW DIRECTIONS IN TEACHING (Volume 2, Number 2, 1970) printed his “Humanistic Education Vs. Professional Education: Further Comments” (reprinted in THE JOURNAL OF HUMANISTIC PSYCHOLOGY, Summer 1979). In the article, he described a seminar which was “an especially important learning experience for me because I had just completed a year-long fellowship granted me by the Fund for the Advancement of Education of the Ford Foundation,” and he further stated: “I should point out that this challenging of authority is also having some effects that I consider beneficial. My students today, when I compare them with those of twenty-five years ago, are less nationalistic and more internationalistic… much less accepting of outworn institutions, etc…. a more mature person giving up childish ways of thinking in absolutes….”
Late in 1968 (November 28), THE HOUSTON TRIBUNE published Alice Widener’s article “Ford Foundation Politics,” quoting United Federation of Teachers president Albert Shanker as saying that the Ford Foundation “is investing heavily in every major organization that has influence over the educational policies of the city (New York). That fact should cause concern for all of us. Why are they doing it? They are doing it to influence the educational policies of the city.” On the same day, THE WANDERER published Edith Kermit Roosevelt’s nationally-syndicated column “Government Within A Government,” in which she related that Albert Shanker has charged that “a very substantial number” of members of the New York board of education “are in such great debt to the Ford Foundation that they cannot act independently.” Roosevelt also indicated that Shanker said that the Foundation ought to be treated as a “political lobby” and should lose its tax-exempt status and be “required to fully disclose the extent” of its “activities in this field.” Actually, according William H. McIlhany II, in THE TAX-EXEMPT FOUNDATIONS (1980): “The blatant partisonship of the groups for which Ford has provided the bulk of support since 1970 was so overwhelming that for one month in that year the I.R.S. was embarrassed into removing the Foundation’s tax-exempt status, but the bureaucratic pressures for its restoration were either too powerful or tempting to the service.”
In the March 31, 1969 edition of THE OREGONIAN is an article, “Students Rate Revolution as Primary Task,” in which Michael Klonsky, executive secretary of the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), is reported to have said, “Our primary task is to build a Marxist-Leninist movement.” The relevance of this statement is that according to the February 25, 1971, “SDS Infiltrator Talks,” in THE VALLEY TIMES, David Gumaer was a former undercover police intelligence agent who had participated in SDS demonstrations and said he had “wondered where the money was coming from for all this activity, and soon discovered it came from radicals via the United Nations, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation, United Auto Workers, as well as cigar boxes of American money from the Cuban embassy.” What he asserted was basically confirmed by James Kirk, who while a student at the University of Chicago, had on behalf of the FBI become active in SDS, the Communist Party and other groups, and in 1970 testified before the House and Senate Internal Security Committees as follows: “Young people… have no idea that they are playing into the hands of the Establishment they claim to hate. The radicals think they’re fighting the forces of the super-rich, like Rockefeller and Ford, and don’t realize it is precisely such forces that are behind their own revolution, financing it, and using it for their own purposes.”
The power elite one-worlders believe that more, not less, government is the solution to the world’s problems, and in 1969 the Ford Foundation published a “think piece” titled PLANNING AND PARTICIPATION, in which Ford’s National Affairs Division director Mitchell Sviridoff told the American Institute of Planners: “The times do not call for shrinkage of the responsibilities or powers of government…. The world is too complex for an abatement of government powers. If anything, the role of government must be strengthened.” Sviridoff continued in the Foundation’s THE FORD FOUNDATION AND NATIONAL AFFAIRS (1971): “Our third main goal strengthening the capacity of government…. The fact is that the Ford Foundation and many others collaborate closely with government, especially in Washington. Very often federal agencies look to foundations to break new ground before the government is willing to embark on a collaborative effort.” Efforts like these facilitated the public-private partnerships we see today as part of the power elite’s plan.
During this same period, the Ford Foundation received Bulgarian scientist Dr. Georgi Lozanov to explain his “suggestology” method, which draws from various specialties such as Raja Yoga, music, sleep-learning, physiology, hypnosis, autogenics, parapsychology and drama. It is essentially “applied” altered states of consciousness for various purposes. According to Sheila Ostrander and Lynn Schroeder in SUPERLEARNING (1979), the two authors had met Lozanov in the Institute of Suggestology and Parapsychology in Bulgaria in 1968, and they wrote: “We had scarcely gotten back to America, when suddenly in 1969, though few Bulgarians were permitted to travel to the West, Dr. Lozanov arrived in New York…. Something was certainly working for him. On this and subsequent visits he made to America, we reviewed numerous films on suggestopedia and suggestology, read his thesis and many of his other publications, and saw the presentations for UNESCO and the Ford Foundation.”
Internationally, from 1969 to 1977, the Ford Foundation provided a grant for the publication of PUBLIC PAPERS OF THE SECRETARIES-GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS, including those of U Thant talking about “the myth of the absolute sovereign state” and “world citizens as they work steadfastly to usher in the new world order.” Earlier it was mentioned that an official of the Ford Foundation had attended a Bilderberg Group meeting, but even more than that, the Ford Foundation (and the Rockefeller Foundation) paid all the expenses for the Bilderberg meeting at Woodstock, Vermont in 1971. The next year, on July 23-24, 1972, Ford Foundation president McGeorge Bundy attended a 17-person planning group meeting at David Rockefeller’s estate for the establishment of the Trilateral Commission. And in January-February 1973, a formal funding proposal was submitted to the Ford Foundation by Trilateral Commission representatives “to support a major share of the intellectual and research aspect of the Commission’s work and some of the administrative ‘selling’ aspects.” The result was that between June 30, 1974, and June 30, 1976, the Ford Foundation gave the Trilateral Commission $500,000.
There was a growing concern during the next decades (1980s) that American students’ basic skills were lacking and that this would impact negatively upon the future workforce. Thomas Sticht had conducted major research on reading for the Ford Foundation (and the U.S. Army), and according to Lawrence Feinberg in THE WASHINGTON POST (August 17, 1987), Sticht along with David Harman said what may be crucial in the U.S. is the dependability of the labor force and how well it can be managed and trained, not its general education level although a small cadre of highly educated creative people is essential to growth.
The same year (1987), the Ford Foundation (and the Rockefeller and Exxon Foundations) financed “The United States Prepares for its Future: Global Perspectives in Education, Report of the Study Commission on Global Education,” printed by Global Perspectives in Education (GPE, name later changed to the American Forum for Global Education). In the Foreword to the Report, New Age networker Harlan Cleveland (Rhodes Scholar, C.F.R. member and with the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies) wrote: “A dozen years ago… teaching and learning ‘in global perspective’ was still exotic doctrine, threatening the orthodoxies of those who still thought of American citizenship as an amalgam of American history, American geography, American lifestyles and American ideas…. It now seems almost conventional to speak of American citizenship in the same breath with international interdependence… and the planetary environment.”
By Dennis L. Cuddy, NewsWithViews.com, April-May 2008
...In past columns I’ve written about Rhodes, Rockefeller and Carnegie, but this article will take a close look at the Ford Foundation, which was founded in 1936. In that same year, Dyke Brown, who would become the Foundation’s first vice-president, became a Rhodes Scholar (named for Cecil Rhodes who formed a secret society ‘to take the government of the whole world”). Brown would help to write “The Gaither Report,” named for Ford Foundation president H. Rowan Gaither, who in 1953 told Norman Dodd (staff director of the Congressional Special Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations) that at the executive level of the Foundation they were operating under directives from the White House “the substance (of which) was to the effect that we should make every effort to so alter life in the United States as to make possible a comfortable merger with the Soviet Union.” Another Rhodes Scholar, Don Price (who would author AMERICA’S UNWRITTEN CONSTITUTION), would be Foundation vice-president from 1954-1958. Price would then be, from 1961-1971, a trustee of the Rand Corporation, which had H. Rowan Gaither as its chairman from 1948 until 1961 when Gaither died.
During this same period, from 1951-1954, Robert Hutchins was associate director of the Ford Foundation, as it gave 15 million dollars to set up the leftist Fund for the Republic (Hutchins would be chief executive of the Fund from 1954-1974 and its president from 1975-1977). Two years before 1951, Hutchins, along with G. A. Borgese and Walter T. Paepcke, founded the Aspen Institute for Humanist Studies (which has received major funding from the Ford Foundation) in 1949. Then, in 1951, the Ford Foundation created the leftist Fund for the Advancement of Education, which assisted Mortimer Adler (who was taught philosophy at Columbia University by John Dewey, and who had supported the concept of a World Socialist Government). In June 1952, Adler announced plans to found the leftist Institute for Philosophical Research, which has received grants from the Ford Foundation. And in 1953, Hutchins (who as president of the University of Chicago had brought Adler there) authored CONFLICT IN EDUCATION IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY, in which he stated, “I am in favor of world government.”
That Hutchins supported world government had already been apparent from the University of Chicago Press’s 1948 publication of PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF A WORLD CONSTITUTION while Hutchins was chancellor of the University. It was produced by Hutchins, Mortimer Adler, Rexford Tugwell, and others, and advocated regional federation on the way toward the world federation of government. One commentator said the draft “does not contain a single paragraph that would run counter to socialism.” The “constitution’s” preamble contained the words “the governments of the nations have decided to order their separate sovereignties in one government of justice to which they surrender their arms; and to establish, as they do establish, this constitution as the covenant and fundamental law of the Federal Republic of the World.” The “constitution” itself also provided the world government with sweeping powers such as “the appropriation, under the right of eminent domain, of such private or public property as may be necessary for federal use.”
The same year as Ford Foundation’s president Gaither’s statement (quoted above) was made to Norman Dodd (1953), the Foundation established the Center for the Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences (which would receive 6 million dollars from the Foundation in 1969) with Dr. Ralph Tyler as its first director (Tyler has said “the real purpose of education is… to bring about significant changes in the student’s pattern or behavior,” and he served as the Center’s director until 1967, and was also chairman of the Carnegie Corporation’s Committee on Assessing the Progress of Education, which would become the National Assessment of Educational Progress, NAEP). Also in 1953, John J. McCloy (Council on Foreign Relations Chairman 1953-1970) would become chairman of the Ford Foundation until 1965, and in 1956 said, “In my view we must be ready to consider the most far-reaching proposals, including those for total disarmament, universal, enforceable and complete with international inspection.”
In January of 1957, Dennis Healey (who would be Britain’s Labor Minister of Defense 1964-1970) and others decided to set up a strategic think-tank. Healey had met Shepherd Stone, head of the social and political part of the Ford Foundation at a meeting of the Bilderberg group in Fiuggi, Italy, and Stone was interested in the idea. By the end of 1958, the think-tank, the Institute for Strategic Studies, had begun its work with the Ford Foundation contributing $150,000 over three years. By 1958, the Ford Foundation had also initiated grants in its programs in the behavioral sciences and mental health totaling over $21 million. The next year, the Foundation encouraged Mrs. J. Dickerman Hollister to found the syncretistic Temple of Understanding (the original idea for the temple was Mrs. Hollister’s, but the name for the temple was suggested by Mrs. Ellsworth Bunker, wife of the American ambassador to India). In 1960, the Temple was founded with partial funding by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
The next year (1961), Terrell Bell (future U.S. Secretary of Education who would support a proposal that would put Outcome-based Education in all schools) received his doctorate as a Ford Foundation fellow. The Ford Foundation would also support the Institute for Educational Leadership founded in 1964. That same year, the Committee on Assessing the Progress of Education, mentioned earlier, began its work and was funded by the Ford Foundation along with the Carnegie Corporation (they both financed ECAPE, Exploratory Committee on Assessing the Progress of Education, beginning in 1966). Also, in 1964, SIECUS (Sex Information and Education Council of the U.S.), which has supported the use of pornography, began to receive major funding from the Ford Foundation (which would also fund Catholics for a Free Choice and provide major funding for Planned Parenthood).
In 1965, the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions (CSDI) authored A CONSTITUTION FOR THE WORLD. The “constitution” was published by the Fund for the Republic (set up by the Ford Foundation), which had established the CSDI in 1959. And the CSDI also published a “modern” constitution for the U.S. in 1970. McGeorge Bundy (member of Skull & Bones, the CFR, and special assistant for National Security Affairs to J.F.K and L.B.J., 1961-1966) became president of the Ford Foundation in 1966 (remaining in that position until 1979, and becoming Scholar-in-Residence at the Carnegie Corporation in 1992). The next year (1967), Ford Foundation trustee Kermit Gordon (Rhodes Scholar, C.F.R. member and Keynesian economist) would become president of the Brookings Institution.
In 1968, Paul Ehrlich’s POPULATION BOMB, financed by the Ford Foundation and advocating population control, was published (in fiscal 1982 alone, the Ford Foundation spent 10.2 million dollars on population control). In this same year (1968), the Center for Educational Research and Innovation was created by the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) with the help of grants from the Ford Foundation and the Royal Dutch/Shell group of companies. The Center would print ALTERNATIVE EDUCATIONAL FUTURES IN THE UNITED STATES AND IN EUROPE (1972) in which New Age networker Willis Harman (Stanford University Research Institute, Planetary Citizens, and the Institute of Noetic Sciences) would assert: “It is not enough to be intellectually aware that at this point in history nationalism is a suicidal course…. Educational experiences must be contemplated which are akin to psychotherapy… that result in a felt realization of the inevitability of one inseparable world, and a felt shift in the most basic values and premises on which one builds one’s life. In a sense this means bringing something like ‘person-changing technology’ into the educational system (e.g., meditation, hypnosis, sensitivity training, psychodrama, yoga, etc.).”
Another “values-changing” leader supported by the Ford Foundation was Abraham Maslow, father of Third Force Humanistic Psychology (and a founder of the Association of Humanistic Psychology in 1962). In the second edition of Maslow’s TOWARD A PSYCHOLOGY OF BEING (1968, with a single left eye on the cover), he said: “I wish to acknowledge the fellowship given me by the Ford Foundation’s Fund for the Advancement of Education.” The Foundation’s fellowship was for a year to reflect upon and write about humanistic education, some of the results of which Maslow had published in “Some Educational Implications of the Humanistic Psychologies” (HARVARD EDUCATIONAL REVIEW, Fall 1968). The next year, PACE magazine (December 1969) published an interview with Maslow (president of the American Psychological Association at the time) in which he pronounced: “Young people are looking for the kind of certainties that the religions and traditions used to give them. Now the religions have cracked up, the traditions have cracked up. It is not only God is Dead but Marx is Dead and Freud and Dead and Darwin is Dead. They have no sources of values to go by. So they have to work everything out for themselves. This new humanistic revolution has an alternative source of values.”
The next year, on June 8, 1970, Maslow died, and about the same time, NEW DIRECTIONS IN TEACHING (Volume 2, Number 2, 1970) printed his “Humanistic Education Vs. Professional Education: Further Comments” (reprinted in THE JOURNAL OF HUMANISTIC PSYCHOLOGY, Summer 1979). In the article, he described a seminar which was “an especially important learning experience for me because I had just completed a year-long fellowship granted me by the Fund for the Advancement of Education of the Ford Foundation,” and he further stated: “I should point out that this challenging of authority is also having some effects that I consider beneficial. My students today, when I compare them with those of twenty-five years ago, are less nationalistic and more internationalistic… much less accepting of outworn institutions, etc…. a more mature person giving up childish ways of thinking in absolutes….”
Late in 1968 (November 28), THE HOUSTON TRIBUNE published Alice Widener’s article “Ford Foundation Politics,” quoting United Federation of Teachers president Albert Shanker as saying that the Ford Foundation “is investing heavily in every major organization that has influence over the educational policies of the city (New York). That fact should cause concern for all of us. Why are they doing it? They are doing it to influence the educational policies of the city.” On the same day, THE WANDERER published Edith Kermit Roosevelt’s nationally-syndicated column “Government Within A Government,” in which she related that Albert Shanker has charged that “a very substantial number” of members of the New York board of education “are in such great debt to the Ford Foundation that they cannot act independently.” Roosevelt also indicated that Shanker said that the Foundation ought to be treated as a “political lobby” and should lose its tax-exempt status and be “required to fully disclose the extent” of its “activities in this field.” Actually, according William H. McIlhany II, in THE TAX-EXEMPT FOUNDATIONS (1980): “The blatant partisonship of the groups for which Ford has provided the bulk of support since 1970 was so overwhelming that for one month in that year the I.R.S. was embarrassed into removing the Foundation’s tax-exempt status, but the bureaucratic pressures for its restoration were either too powerful or tempting to the service.”
In the March 31, 1969 edition of THE OREGONIAN is an article, “Students Rate Revolution as Primary Task,” in which Michael Klonsky, executive secretary of the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), is reported to have said, “Our primary task is to build a Marxist-Leninist movement.” The relevance of this statement is that according to the February 25, 1971, “SDS Infiltrator Talks,” in THE VALLEY TIMES, David Gumaer was a former undercover police intelligence agent who had participated in SDS demonstrations and said he had “wondered where the money was coming from for all this activity, and soon discovered it came from radicals via the United Nations, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation, United Auto Workers, as well as cigar boxes of American money from the Cuban embassy.” What he asserted was basically confirmed by James Kirk, who while a student at the University of Chicago, had on behalf of the FBI become active in SDS, the Communist Party and other groups, and in 1970 testified before the House and Senate Internal Security Committees as follows: “Young people… have no idea that they are playing into the hands of the Establishment they claim to hate. The radicals think they’re fighting the forces of the super-rich, like Rockefeller and Ford, and don’t realize it is precisely such forces that are behind their own revolution, financing it, and using it for their own purposes.”
The power elite one-worlders believe that more, not less, government is the solution to the world’s problems, and in 1969 the Ford Foundation published a “think piece” titled PLANNING AND PARTICIPATION, in which Ford’s National Affairs Division director Mitchell Sviridoff told the American Institute of Planners: “The times do not call for shrinkage of the responsibilities or powers of government…. The world is too complex for an abatement of government powers. If anything, the role of government must be strengthened.” Sviridoff continued in the Foundation’s THE FORD FOUNDATION AND NATIONAL AFFAIRS (1971): “Our third main goal strengthening the capacity of government…. The fact is that the Ford Foundation and many others collaborate closely with government, especially in Washington. Very often federal agencies look to foundations to break new ground before the government is willing to embark on a collaborative effort.” Efforts like these facilitated the public-private partnerships we see today as part of the power elite’s plan.
During this same period, the Ford Foundation received Bulgarian scientist Dr. Georgi Lozanov to explain his “suggestology” method, which draws from various specialties such as Raja Yoga, music, sleep-learning, physiology, hypnosis, autogenics, parapsychology and drama. It is essentially “applied” altered states of consciousness for various purposes. According to Sheila Ostrander and Lynn Schroeder in SUPERLEARNING (1979), the two authors had met Lozanov in the Institute of Suggestology and Parapsychology in Bulgaria in 1968, and they wrote: “We had scarcely gotten back to America, when suddenly in 1969, though few Bulgarians were permitted to travel to the West, Dr. Lozanov arrived in New York…. Something was certainly working for him. On this and subsequent visits he made to America, we reviewed numerous films on suggestopedia and suggestology, read his thesis and many of his other publications, and saw the presentations for UNESCO and the Ford Foundation.”
Internationally, from 1969 to 1977, the Ford Foundation provided a grant for the publication of PUBLIC PAPERS OF THE SECRETARIES-GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS, including those of U Thant talking about “the myth of the absolute sovereign state” and “world citizens as they work steadfastly to usher in the new world order.” Earlier it was mentioned that an official of the Ford Foundation had attended a Bilderberg Group meeting, but even more than that, the Ford Foundation (and the Rockefeller Foundation) paid all the expenses for the Bilderberg meeting at Woodstock, Vermont in 1971. The next year, on July 23-24, 1972, Ford Foundation president McGeorge Bundy attended a 17-person planning group meeting at David Rockefeller’s estate for the establishment of the Trilateral Commission. And in January-February 1973, a formal funding proposal was submitted to the Ford Foundation by Trilateral Commission representatives “to support a major share of the intellectual and research aspect of the Commission’s work and some of the administrative ‘selling’ aspects.” The result was that between June 30, 1974, and June 30, 1976, the Ford Foundation gave the Trilateral Commission $500,000.
There was a growing concern during the next decades (1980s) that American students’ basic skills were lacking and that this would impact negatively upon the future workforce. Thomas Sticht had conducted major research on reading for the Ford Foundation (and the U.S. Army), and according to Lawrence Feinberg in THE WASHINGTON POST (August 17, 1987), Sticht along with David Harman said what may be crucial in the U.S. is the dependability of the labor force and how well it can be managed and trained, not its general education level although a small cadre of highly educated creative people is essential to growth.
The same year (1987), the Ford Foundation (and the Rockefeller and Exxon Foundations) financed “The United States Prepares for its Future: Global Perspectives in Education, Report of the Study Commission on Global Education,” printed by Global Perspectives in Education (GPE, name later changed to the American Forum for Global Education). In the Foreword to the Report, New Age networker Harlan Cleveland (Rhodes Scholar, C.F.R. member and with the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies) wrote: “A dozen years ago… teaching and learning ‘in global perspective’ was still exotic doctrine, threatening the orthodoxies of those who still thought of American citizenship as an amalgam of American history, American geography, American lifestyles and American ideas…. It now seems almost conventional to speak of American citizenship in the same breath with international interdependence… and the planetary environment.”