The United Nations and the Socialist International are waging war against Chile and its conservative president, Sebastián Piñera. Since mid-October, Chile’s capital, Santiago, and other cities across the country have been wracked by violent riots, with dozens of people killed, thousands injured (including hundreds of police and military personnel), thousands arrested, and an enormous amount of destruction of public infrastructure and private property, including train stations, businesses, shops, and supermarkets.
The Piñera government declared a state of emergency and imposed curfews. President Piñera faces a National Congress that is stacked against him, as well as a hostile media, and leftist-controlled universities that serve as hotbeds for revolution.
The United Nations high commissioner for human rights, Michelle Bachelet, has responded to the turmoil by sending a team of UN investigators to Chile to examine allegations of human rights abuse by the Chilean government. This move by the UN should have caused suspicion from the get-go. Why? Well, for one thing, Michelle Bachelet is herself a former president of Chile (two terms, 2006-2010 and 2014-2018) and a virulent opponent of President Piñera. That alone should lead any reasonable observer to suspect, at the very least, that her UN “investigation” is likely to be politically motivated.
However, it goes much deeper than that. Bachelet, a hardcore Marxist, is an ardent admirer of the late communist dictator Fidel Castro, and, as one of her last acts as president of Chile, made a pilgrimage to Cuba to praise Fidel and meet with his designated successor and brother, Raúl Castro, the current communist dictator of Cuba. She is also a supporter of the Marxist regimes in Nicaragua and Venezuela.
In the 1970s, Bachelet left Chile and moved to communist East Germany, then one of the most oppressive dictatorships in the Soviet bloc. Moreover, Bachelet is a longtime member of, and was elected president while the leader of, Chile’s ultra-left Socialist Party, which is a member of the Socialist International, the global cabal of more than 135 national political parties from all continents, including former communist parties that have rebranded themselves as socialist or social democrat. The secretary-general of the Socialist International is Luis Ayala, a radical Chilean who is a close comrade of Bachelet in the Socialist Party. Bachelet was selected for the UN high commissioner post by UN Secretary-General António Guterres, a former president of the Socialist International. Although barely known in the United States (because it is seldom mentioned by our controlled “mainstream” media — and is even largely ignored by our alternative media), the Socialist International (SI) virtually runs the United Nations and many of its agencies, with Guterres being only the most obvious example of its influence.
Another SI/UN alum is former Chilean President Ricardo Lagos, a former member of Chile’s Socialist Party and one of the Chileans often quoted in recent stories undermining President Piñera. He is also one of the few SI members named to the “Committee of Twelve Distinguished Members of the Socialist International.” In 2007, he was named as a UN special envoy on climate change, along with former SI vice president and UN functionary Gro Harlem Brundtland, the former prime minister of Norway.
Bachelet, Guterres, Lagos, Brundtland, and other SI/UN comrades are welcomed as honored guests at the CFR and other globalist gatherings. Bachelet and Lagos are both members of the elite Club of Madrid, as well as Inter-American Dialogue, where both have served as co-chairs.
The cause of Chile’s current “unrest,” according to the lords of the Fake News Media, was the government’s subway fare hike of 30 pesos, the equivalent of four U.S. cents. Anger over the fare increases, goes the standard line from media commentators, caused spontaneous, “student-led” flash mobs of hundreds of youths to jump the Metro turnstiles in protest, which then escalated to “youth-led” mobs setting buses and Metro stations on fire and looting stores, and then escalated still further and broadened into massive protests, supposedly motivated by “income inequality.”
This is the story we get from the New York Times, Washington Post, Associated Press, CNN, PBS, and the rest of the Deep State media cartel. Most of these “news” reports take their cues on the issue from so-called experts at the Council on Foreign Relations, the Council of the Americas, Inter-American Dialogue, and similar globalist propaganda founts that posture as objective think tanks.
According to Amelia Cheatham, a “Special Assistant” at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), “The turmoil began on October 18 with student-led protests over a metro fare increase.” Her CFR blog post entitled “What’s Behind the Chile Protests?” states that “Political unrest is sweeping Chile, as impatience with inequality grows in what has been one of Latin America’s most prosperous and stable countries.”
President Piñera and other Latin American leaders paint a different picture. “We are at war against a powerful enemy, who is willing to use violence without any limits,” Piñera declared in a late-night televised statement on October 29. “We are very aware that [the perpetrators of riots] have a degree of organization, logistics, typical of a criminal organization,” he said. According to news reports from Chile, Cuban and Venezuelan nationals were arrested as instigators of the rioting. And Chile is not alone in this regard.
On October 22, Argentina’s National Security Council met to consider the wave of violent protest that is sweeping across Latin America. Following the meeting, Argentine Foreign Minister Jorge Faurie pointed to Cuba and the Marxist dictatorship of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela as the source of the orchestrated upheavals. “They intend to intervene in the political, institutional and social lives of our countries, threatening us like a Bolivarian hurricane that brings in its winds hunger, poverty, dictatorship, the loss of liberty and a prison sentence,” Faurie charged. “Bolivarian” refers to the political philosophy of Venezuela’s founding father, Simón Bolívar, which has been expropriated and hybridized by Hugo Chávez, Nicolás Maduro, and others of the communist-Left to advance their socialist agendas.
Under the guise of keeping America “competitive” in the looming high-tech future, the globalist Council on Foreign Relations is urging policymakers at all levels to dramatically expand the size and scope of government. The bloated welfare states in Sweden and Denmark are cited as examples of the “advantages” of massive government programs to take care for people. Without the sort of fundamental transformation of America envisioned by the CFR, the nation will supposedly be left behind in the emerging new paradigm, the organization claimed. Critics, though, blasted that idea.
In its new report, dubbed “The Work Ahead: Machines, Skills, and U.S. Leadership in the Twenty-First Century,” the CFR Task Force offered a broad array of policy recommendations for federal, state, and local officials. These range from ever more immigration and a greater role for government in various facets of the economy, to a dramatic expansion of the welfare state modeled on Big Government schemes from Northern Europe. The CFR’s demands regarding education, which are a key component of the report, will be covered in an upcoming article.
Some of the leaders involved in creating the CFR report told The New American that without implementing the sought-after changes, America would be left behind as the world moves toward a globalized future of fast-moving technological progress. But experts and legislators invited to participate in the scheme who spoke to The New American sounded the alarm about the CFR’s vision. Among other concerns, they warned that the controversial CFR report and outreach efforts selling it to policymakers reveal a hidden plan to push a dangerous agenda and bring state and local officials into the establishment’s globalist orbit.
One reason why the CFR’s pronouncements are so important is because of the key role they play setting policy. Indeed, looking at its membership and influence, many analysts consider the CFR to be a key Deep State hub in America. The late U.S. Admiral Chester Ward, a CFR member for almost 20 years before defecting and blowing the whistle, explained that this enormous power is used for neferious purposes. In fact, Ward said, the main objective of the organization is to undermine U.S. sovereignty and facilitate the merger of the United States into what he described as an “all-powerful one-world government.”
The way it advances its objectives was explained by Admiral Ward, too. “Once the ruling members of CFR have decided that the U.S. Government should adopt a particular policy, the very substantial research facilities of CFR are put to work to develop arguments, intellectual and emotional, to support the new policy, and to confound and discredit, intellectually and politically, any opposition,” he said. “The most articulate theoreticians and ideologists prepare related articles, aided by the research, to sell the new policy and to make it appear inevitable and irresistible.”
“By following the evolution of this propaganda in the most prestigious scholarly journal in the world, [CFR mouthpiece] Foreign Affairs, anyone can determine years in advance what the future defense and foreign policies of the United States will be,” the respected admiral warned after ditching his membership at the CFR. “If a certain proposition is repeated often enough in that journal, then the U.S. Administration in power — be it Republican or Democratic — begins to act as if that proposition or assumption were an established fact.”
While that may not be true in the Trump era, when voters and their president have openly rejected globalism, it certainly has been true for decades, if not generations, regardless of the party formally in power. Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton noted publicly that the CFR told her what she should be doing and how she should be thinking about the future. Former Vice President Joe Biden, meanwhile, joked that he worked for CFR boss Richard Haass. Even many top “Republicans” are involved.
Of course, the latest CFR agenda starts with a kernel of truth. As anybody with common sense can see, the economy is changing and will be undergoing further changes in the years ahead. As a result of technological developments, the future of work will look very different in 30 or 40 years than it does today. Many Americans will lose their jobs. All that is true. Of course, it would be difficult to sell enormous policy changes if the entire premise behind them was nothing but fiction, obviously.
But the agenda being pushed is another matter. Under the pretext of responding to the obvious changes coming in the years ahead, the CFR — a leading Deep State institution in America that has dominated foreign policy for generations — is pushing what critics warned was a dangerous scheme to expand the power of government. The plan also advances globalism at every level of society, a key goal of the CFR dating back to its founding. In short, it is a massive and dangerous power grab that should be resisted, critics told The New American.
Globalist notions of “free trade” and mass migration are at the heart of the agenda. “Openness to trade and immigration are vital for maintaining U.S. technological leadership,” the CFR report says. Indeed, there are over 60 references to “trade” and more than 60 mentions of immigration, especially the alleged need to expand the already-massive immigration numbers coming to America.
As readers of this magazine know well, though, when the CFR advocates “trade,” it is generally referring not to genuine free trade, but to sovereignty-shredding “free trade” agreements that strip nations and peoples of the right to govern themselves. Mass migration, meanwhile, also helps smash national identities, culture, and eventually, the nation-state itself, as Europe is learning the hard way right now.
On the government’s role in the economy and the welfare state, the CFR report also seeks major changes. “U.S. efforts to help displaced workers are inadequate,” the report says, ignoring the U.S. Constitution’s limits on federal power and insinuating that it is the federal government’s role to train and help workers. “Unemployment insurance is too rigid and covers too few workers, and retraining programs are not based on the best global models,” the report continued, without giving many details on what these “global models” demand of America.
The report also includes seven specific recommendations for policymakers at all levels. These mostly revolve around the supposed need for much larger and more intrusive government across the board. Among other recommendations, the CFR claims:
• Government should be involved in “creating better jobs and career paths for Americans,” as if the real problem facing America was a lack of central planning, government-created “jobs,” and government-directed careers.
• Another recommendation calls for more immigration, including “highly skilled” migrants who would help drive down wages for America’s embattled middle class even as the CFR warns that countless people will lose jobs due to automation.
• Also supposedly needed is more government funding for “research,” as if the state, rather than the private sector, knows better what ought to be researched and what projects would be worthwhile to fund.
• Putting college and university “education” within “reach” of all Americans is important, too, the report said, implicitly advocating even more tax funding for bloated “educational” institutions that are churning out ignorant socialists with worthless “degrees” literally by the millions.
• America should also adopt the “best features” of what the CFR report describes as the European “flexicurity” models. As examples of the supposed “advantages” of these models, the Task Force pointed to the bloated welfare states of Sweden and Denmark, where tax rates (including VAT, income taxes, energy taxes, and more) can consume three-fourths of individuals’ earnings, and where individual freedom is severely limited.
• Finally, the report calls for the U.S. government to “create portable systems of employment benefits tied to individual employees rather than to jobs themselves.” This government-created system should be “universal,” as the report puts it — or in other words, mandatory for everyone.
There are many other recommendations woven throughout the 162-page report. Some make sense, such as scaling back the enormous growth in state licensing schemes that inhibit consumer choice and do nothing to protect the health and safety of consumers. But the overwhelming majority call for larger and more intrusive government: Creating a “National Commission on the U.S. Workforce,” offering more tax-funded subsidies for “affordable” housing, spending more money on government-controlled “public transportation” systems, and more.
As part of the initiative, CFR Vice President for National Programs and Outreach Irina Faskianos organized a conference call for state and local officials to promote the policy recommendations. On that call, CFR term member Chike Aguh, a member of the CFR Task Force behind the report and a former teacher who now works at the McChrystal Group, condensed the subject matter into four “buckets,” as he described it. Phrased as questions, he put it this way: “What is the work of the future? How do we make sure that we have the workers who have the skills to do that work? How do we make sure that those workers can find that work, and vice-versa? And lastly, how do we make sure that there’s a safety net to support them the entire way?”
Among other topics, Aguh argued that new systems were needed to help people who need work to find work that needs to be done. Using an example of a casino that could not find enough workers, he claimed there was “a lack of matching between people who could do the work and the work that needed to be done.” “And the question is,” he continued, “how do we solve that?” In a free-market system, those problems generally work themselves out. If there are not enough workers to fill job openings, then the employers may need to pay higher wages, or offer more benefits, or advertise better. But in the CFR’s view, it seems more bureaucracy and government programs are the answer.
Another topic on the call was establishing a “social safety net” that will “support the worker through this whole process.” According to Aguh, the existing welfare state is not enough. Complaining that the current regime was established in the 1950s and has not changed much since then, Aguh argued that the government should play a much more active role in providing economic “security” for people. For instance, he said some people might stay in their job simply because of the benefits it provides, whereas if the government created programs for health and welfare, that worker could move to another job more easily.
In a phone interview with The New American, Aguh noted that there were major changes when the economy went from primarily an agricultural system to a more industrial system. “As we look at this new economy, the Fourth Industrial Revolution, we argue that we need a change,” he explained, adding that the system would have to change to keep pace with the changes happening in the economy such as automation, job losses, and so on. But in the end, there is “no silver bullet,” he said. “There’s a myriad of things that have to happen.”
Separately, CFR Task Force Project Director Ted Alden acknowledged to The New American in a phone interview that the report seeks to tackle an enormous range of issues. “The danger of this is that it becomes a report about everything,” he said, chuckling. Then he provided an overview of some of the many areas where the CFR group believes policymakers should make changes.
Asked about “global models” for unemployment insurance, Alden said there were two big pieces. One is to make the system more “effective.” “Europeans do better than we do here; Denmark and Sweden do this better than we do,” he said. “That doesn’t mean we necessarily need to follow them — they have different systems — but they do a lot right. For example, their unemployment systems. The U.S. is an enormous laggard in re-training and in spending.”
In America, the unemployment system was designed for cyclical downturns as people were laid off in bad times. “We argue for a move toward more of an affordable benefits program, recognizing the emergence of the gig economy,” he said, citing issues such as California’s recent scheme to force Uber and other similar companies to treat all their drivers as actual employees. “We have to have a social-benefit system that makes this kind of model work.”
While saying that did not necessarily mean a government takeover of health insurance, retirement, and other benefits people often obtain from their jobs, Alden and the Task Force report made clear that the federal government has a significant role to play. “What we’re talking about is allowing people to move more easily between jobs and retain benefits,” said Alden, who described his role as “working to try to fashion a consensus from the smart and visionary people” involved in the Task Force. “We need greater flexibility. The gap in economic security between full-time workers and part-time workers is enormous.” The Task Force did not get down to the “very granular level,” but there are many different models worth looking at, he said.
On immigration, Alden said he did not want to speak for the group on how to design an immigration system. “What I can say with confidence about the position of the group is we were trying to deal with a conundrum,” he said. “How does U.S. remain most competitive and innovative economy in the world? Our prosperity depends on us maintaining a technological lead. We don’t want to see government throwing wrenches that slow down technological progress. But if you look at evidence on high-skilled immigration to U.S., it’s a tremendous benefit to the U.S. economy and innovation.”
When pressed about the views of critics, Alden said the “notion of immigrants as competition for American workers” was actually “short sighted.” But of course, it is an established fact that an increased supply of labor will have the immediate effect of driving down wages, compounding the looming job losses and relocation that purport to justify the entire CFR Task Force’s agenda.
In the end, Alden portrayed the CFR’s efforts as a benevolent plan to help America succeed in a complex and globalized world. “Americans feel very uncertain right now,” he said. “They don’t know their place. If we don’t help Americans succeed, the future of the country is going to be very much in question. The U.S. is pulling back in global leadership, but we believe U.S. leadership has been an important force in the world. So there is a very important duality: How do we remain competitive and innovate, while making sure the benefits spread out to all of America, so they can embrace the future rather than be scared of it?”
Lawmakers who spoke with The New American, though, had a different take on it all. Senator Regina Bayer, an Idaho Republican who was invited to join the CFR’s conference call for state officials, warned of a nefarious agenda hidden just below the surface. “My take on this conference call and task force is the CFR is attempting to establish a new, direct form of communication; new ways to disseminate information,” she explained. “They need to establish themselves as dedicated and honorable so that their information will be accepted as good and truthful.”
Part of the agenda, Senator Bayer continued, was to establish a sort of “open door” communication between the CFR and state and local officials, as the “federal and international approaches are not as successful as they would like to see.” She cited the implementation of the totalitarian United Nations Agenda 2030 as an example. “It is working better now as it is being implemented at the local and state levels rather than just a power push from the top,” she explained. Part of the strategy seems to be to “wow” state and local politicians into feeling important because a well-known organization like the CFR is interested in connecting with them. Interestingly, before Trump’s election, a CFR member was calling for abolishing U.S. state governments entirely.
But the underlying goals are clear. “Both the conference call and the Independent Task Force report are full of global-government ideologies,” she explained. “Most of it reads like Keynesian mumble-jumble. The true remedy would be a return to Austrian economics.” Keynesian economists typically believe government ought to intervene in the economy to deal with all manner of real and imagined “market failures.” Austrian-school economists, by contrast, generally believe the free market without unnecessary government intervention is the best system in terms of creating and distributing wealth.
Especially among Republicans and grassroots conservatives, thanks largely to the efforts of Americanist organizations such as The John Birch Society and Eagle Forum, even establishment types have long recognized that a public association with the CFR can be politically toxic among voters. That is why, for instance, former Vice President Dick Cheney, who served as a director of CFR, boasted in a speech at the CFR of concealing his ties to the globalist organization while campaigning for reelection in Wyoming. But the CFR appears to be working to create ties with lawmakers and policymakers on both sides of the aisle nonetheless.
The CFR is a powerful organization with a well-documented track-record of promoting globalism, undeclared war, unconstitutional Big Government policies, and more. This report will perpetuate that history. So far, the Task Force and “The Work Ahead” report have received very little attention by the establishment press, much of which is openly in bed with the CFR — including many outlets that are corporate members of the group. However, a push to advance the CFR Task Force’s agenda is almost certainly coming, after the groundwork has been properly laid.
As Admiral Ward explained, when the CFR’s leadership decides to pursue a policy, the incredibly powerful propaganda and lobbying apparatus at its disposal represents a force to be reckoned with. That day is likely coming on this agenda, too. For right now, globalism is on defense. But over the long term, only an educated and informed electorate will be able to defend freedom and resist these growing assaults.
Perhaps there really has been some Russia collusion. The globalist Deep State organization known as the Council on Foreign Relations is under fire after it was exposed taking a massive “donation” from Soviet-born oligarch Len Blavatnik (shown), a close crony of Russian strongman Vladimir Putin and his corrupt minions. The shady billionaire has also been showering money on U.S. politicians on both sides of the aisle.
The $12 million “gift” to the CFR, reported publicly by the New York Post and other publications, was described as “influence buying” by critics. Beyond that, it appears to highlight the broader problem of systemic corruption within the U.S. foreign-policy establishment, which will gladly take “donations” to its foundations in exchange for favors. The Clinton Foundation, for instance, has long been accused of serving as an influence-buying machine for foreign governments. It seems the CFR has a similar problem.
The explosive revelation led to dozens of high-profile figures calling on the controversial “think tank” to return the money. In a letter dated September 18, the coalition of 56 critics noted that Blavatnik “acquired his initial wealth by way of highly questionable transactions in tandem with the regimes of [ex-Kazakhstan president] Nursultan Nazarbayev and Vladimir Putin.”
Then, he used shady tactics to keep and expand his fortune. “Blavatnik protected that wealth in part through strategic alliances with security personnel and practices that would surely be considered criminal in any democracy,” the letter continued, calling on the CFR to return the money to avoid “reputational damage” from associating with somebody like Blavatnik with “close ties to the Kremlin and its kleptocratic network.”
After citing some of the ultra-shady deals Blavatnik has been involved with, the coalition also highlighted his ties to Putin’s circle of cronies. “Blavatnik’s connections to corrupt Putin-supported oligarchs and officials are longstanding and well known,” they wrote. “For example, Blavatnik’s business partners include several individuals who are sanctioned by the United States government, such as Viktor Vekselberg, Oleg Deripaska, and Alexander Makhonov.” Citing Spanish wiretaps, the critics also suggested he had ties to the mafia.
“It is our considered view that Blavatnik uses his ‘philanthropy’— funds obtained by and with the consent of the Kremlin, at the expense of the state budget and the Russian people — at leading western academic and cultural institutions to advance his access to political circles,” the letter blasting the CFR explained. “Such ‘philanthropic’ capital enables the infiltration of the US and UK political and economic establishments at the highest levels.”
But CFR boss Richard Haass, a leading globalist architect, defended the donation and said the response from other CFR members to it had been overwhelmingly “positive.” In fact, the CFR’s website still has a glowing biography of Blavatnik, himself a CFR member, posted online, along with information touting the “Blavatnik internship program,” his giant donation will fund.
The gift by Blavatnik “will further CFR’s efforts to develop the next generation of leaders in government, academia and the private sector,” continued Haass, an anti-Trump globalist who has worked for many years to undermine U.S. national sovereignty. “We are proud to find our selves in such distinguished company,” he added.
On the CFR website, the deep state outfit touted the donation, too. “Blavatnik interns gain new insights into critical foreign policy issues and interact directly with leading experts and practitioners,” it said. “They are offered professional development training to complement their substantive work with a series of skill-based workshops, trainings, and career advice sessions as a foundation for future work in the field of foreign policy and international affairs, and beyond.”
Critics, though, were furious. A leading anti-corruption campaigner in the United States, Sarah Chayes, told the publication Bellingcat that the CFR’s willingness to accept the donation from Blavatnik’s foundation was a case study in the “soft enabling of kleptocracy.” In particular, she said it fit with Blavatnik’s history of working with “image launderers” to help him fix his reputation. Beyond that, “it broadcasts to the Kremlin that if you just disguise your money a little bit, the U.S. system is still fully penetrable.”
Other critics were outraged, too. “It is more than disappointing to see the Council on Foreign Relations take millions of dollars from a shady billionaire like Leonid Blavatnik, and excuse it by claiming the money will help interns,” former chief counsel Elise Bean with the U.S. Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations was quoted as saying. “The CFR is helping to neutralize Mr. Blavatnik’s notoriety and extend his influence by enabling him to hitch a ride on its once sterling reputation [sic]. It is painful to see how money talks and the odor of corruption is ignored by CFR leadership when it comes to the Blavatnik millions.”
Another critic who signed the letter, former assistant secretary of state for democracy and human rights David Kramer, lambasted the CFR as well. “All organizations should feel an extra burden to perform due diligence, especially in light of the Epstein scandal with MIT,” Kramer told The New York Post. “We object to Blavatnik’s ties to the Putin regime and how he made his money. I’m sure there are CFR members who are happy to receive a $12 million donation, but if they did some further research, they might raise some questions.”
To understand just how influential the CFR is, consider then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s comments when it opened an office in Washington. “I have been often to the mother ship in New York City, but it is good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department,” she said. “We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.”
But far from being a club just for left-wing Democrats, countless leading Republicans are involved too. In a now-infamous video at the CFR’s headquarters, Vice President Dick Cheney bragged that he used to be a director at the organization. “But I never mentioned that when I was campaigning for re-election back home in Wyoming.” The reason why he would seek to conceal his affiliation with the radical think tank is no surprise — thanks to its relentless support for tearing down U.S. independence, it has become politically toxic, especially with conservative voters.
Its anti-American agenda has been known for decades, too. The late U.S. Admiral Chester Ward, a CFR member for almost 20 years before defecting and blowing the whistle, exposed their schemes for all to see. “The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence, and submergence into an all-powerful one-world government,” warned the widely respected U.S. admiral. “This lust to surrender the sovereignty and independence of the United States is pervasive throughout most of the membership.”
Ward also hinted at the reason why the CFR’s members would be so violently hostile to Trump’s campaign promises. “In the entire CFR lexicon, there is no term of revulsion carrying a meaning so deep as ‘America First,’” he said.
Blavatnik has also poured huge sums into the political coffers of American politicians, ranging from President Donald Trump’s inauguration committee and globalist Republican senators to the campaigns of fringe left-wing Democrats Kamala Harris and Ron Wyden. Top recipients among GOP lawmakers include Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C), Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), and neoconservative Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.).
Blavatnik, a billionaire, maintains U.S. and British citizenship, but was born in Soviet Ukraine. Far from being a self-made businessman, the oligarch made his fortune during the post-Soviet “privatization” of resources — in particular, in his case, aluminum and energy. Following the ostensible collapse of communism, which defectors such as Anatoly Golitsyn warned was a ruse to deceive the West, numerous communist bigwigs connected to the mass-murdering regime re-invented themselves as “businessmen.” And they benefited enormously from the corrupt “privatization” programs that basically handed over vast wealth to “former” communist bosses.
In one especially bizarre “deal” orchestrated by Putin, Blavatnik reportedly earned $7 billion from the sale of an oil company to the state-owned Russian energy giant Rosneft. According to investigations cited in the letter, the Russian government mysteriously overpaid by as much as $3 billion. “Such unexplained sums can then be used by Putin-linked private-sector individuals to further Putin’s interests in foreign countries, including by making donations,” the letter said.
As the scandal surrounding donations made to various institutions by pedophile (and CFR member) Jeffrey Epstein continues to grow, critics of the donation to the CFR warned that the elitist outfit would suffer “reputation damage.” Indeed, Epstein, the elite pedophile who regularly flew prominent CFR-linked people such as President Bill Clinton to his “orgy island,” donated a large sum of money to the CFR, as well. He was a member of the organization, in addition to his membership in the CFR-linked Trilateral Commission and other Deep State fronts.
Another shady figure whose name recently surfaced in connection with establishment circles in Washington, D.C., is Bulgarian-born operative Alexander Vasilev Mirchev. Among other concerns, critics have seized on Mirchev’s well-documented links to the murderous “former” communist regime in Bulgaria, which slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people. The Bulgarian “consultant” also has close ties to the regime in Kazakhstan as well as to Putin cronies. According to Bulgarian media reports, Mirchev has been on the radar of U.S. law enforcement for some time, and even came to the attention of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
While it is encouraging to see the growing backlash against Deep State organizations, the outrage needs to go much deeper. For example, amid all the hysteria about alleged “Russian collusion” involving Trump, almost nobody has discussed CFR luminary Henry Kissinger’s close ties to Putin. Indeed, the Russian strongman has publicly referred to Kissinger — a leading proponent of a globalist “New World Order” — as a “trusted adviser” and a “friend.” The two even go to each other’s houses for meals. And yet, the establishment media has said virtually nothing, and Muller is nowhere to be found.
Americans should use this opportunity to demand a proper congressional investigation of the CFR. Late John Birch Society Chairman Larry McDonald, a liberty-minded congressman from Georgia whose plane was shot down by a Soviet fighter jet in 1983, tried to get Congress to investigate the group decades ago. With Putin’s cronies stuffing the CFR’s coffers with suspect cash, a formal investigation into the group — its agenda, its funding, its ties to Russia, and more — is desperately needed. Perhaps Mueller and House Democrats might find some real Russian collusion, after all.
Ugliness of the debate aside, one worrisome element pertaining to Donald Trump was revealed that has received little, if any, attention. When asked who he would consider putting on his security team if elected president, businessman Trump named three persons: Richard Haass, Gen. Jack Keane and Col. Jack Jacobs. It is troubling that Richard Haass was the billionaire’s first-mentioned name.
As reported by The New York Times Donald Trump held a private briefing last summer with Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Described by the Times as “an independent nonpartisan organization,” the CFR has offered to hold briefings with all candidates from both parties.
To date, Senator Marco Rubio, Jim Webb, Hillary Clinton, Gov. Chris Christie, Gov. John Kasich and Jeb Bush have all made appearances at the Council of Foreign Relations. The back-story of the CFR fills in the details which make this a matter of serious concern.
CFR Beginnings & Goals
The Council on Foreign Relations began in 1921 as the brainchild of Edward Mandell House, a “progressive” who was the real power-broker behind President Woodrow Wilson. House anonymously published a book entitled Philip Dru: Administrator in which he laid out his clandestine plans to create in the United States a government that reflected the “socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx.” This absolutism needed to be masked, therefore he established the CFR as a “neutral think tank” to influence politicians into a “globalist” system.
On page 222 of Philip Dru House wrote: “Our Constitution and our laws served us well for the first 100 years of our existence, but under the conditions of today, they are not only obsolete, but even grotesque.” This was the design of the CFR from the beginning. Those familiar with Woodrow Wilson recognize a commonality in ideas that House shared with Wilson.
The CFR itself does not shy away from these roots, trumpeting on its website that “Since 1921, the Council on Foreign Relations has been the privileged and preeminent nongovernmental impresario of America’s pageant to find its place in the world.” This velvet-covering to its real iron-fisted mission is plainly described by CFR member Richard Gardner in Foreign Affairs in 1974: “An end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.” This is what is intended by The New World Order.
Some Congressmen and Senators who are CFR members have distributed for public consumption that the “beginnings” of the CFR were indeed globalist-minded to destroy United States sovereignty, but now those ideals are not part of the CFR. Today, it is only a “neutral think tank,” we are told.
In a 2006 op-ed piece entitled “State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era,” current CFR president Richard Haass removes any doubt about CFR goals. He openly opined that we must “rethink” national sovereignty and “redefine” it. In Haass’ view “new mechanisms are needed for regional and global governance” and “states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies.” Because of this wonderful globalization Haass said that “sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but … it needs to become weaker.” World Government is his solution—spoken in so many words.
In order to accomplish this goal, which for years was camouflaged by disguising words and using alternate synonyms for “world government,” the CFR now openly declares its plans for “integration” and “convergence” of various governments via the Trans-Pacific-Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). In 1995 it was offered that these “trade agreements” will assist the final mission to “promote and assist the convergence of EU/US Government policies … into a single political framework by early in the next century.” It is hard to miss this meaning.
Sadly, almost every administration since the time of Franklin Roosevelt has been larded with CFR Globalists whose primary aim is driving toward more international power. The Council on Foreign Relations may declare to be a “neutral” think-tank, but Establishment politicians know better. American voters better catch-on, and quick.
That Donald Trump names Richard Haass as his number one man on foreign policy in a potential Trump Administration shows his true colors. Trump’s stumping against unfair trade policies with such nations as China is apparently only words. If and when Trump becomes president it is certain that Kingmaker Richard Haass will show him the way.