Replies

Why wouldn’t a many involved in international business want to be in a group of high powered businessmen and politicians from multiple countries?

The Council on Foreign Relations is not a "group of high powered businessmen", etc.; if you take a look at their membership lists, you'll see who's a member and who's on the Board. For example, it has historically included the leadership of the U.S. news media. How are they helping to gather information for the rich ? The news media leadership controls the dissemination of information, they're not at CFR to find stories. It's quite obvious, because, although these news media heads are members and directors of CFR, the CFR is kept as low-key as possible in the news media and one virtually never hears about. One never hears about its founders, its purpose and mission, its membership, etc., whether in education, news or entertainment. It is impossible to have a leadership position in the State Department or be a foreign policy advisor to a President without the approval of the CFR.

The more information he has the more business opportunities he can capitalize on.

Being the personal advisors to U.S. Presidents, filling the State Department leadership - that's not about gathering business information. I don't think Madeleine Albright, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, etc., simply gather information for rich people (I'm sure they would chuckle at the thought).

The more people he knows in foreign countries the more business allies he has. It’s rich hanging with rich.

The rich man already has business connections anywhere he wants. Government connections are had for one reason. Just like a local town, where land developers want to have their men on the planning boards, zoning boards, etc. It's not so they know what's going to happen, it's to make happen what they want to happen. If I'm a big developer and want to develop some land that's off limits to development, that's where I want to control the government, not come begging it for permission.

Bottom line - the CFR functions as a shadow foreign policy agency that controls U.S. foreign policy. If this was not the case, it would not be necessary for it to exist; diplomats could simply work for the State Department without belonging to a foreign policy "think tank". Or, they could found their own think tank that ONLY had diplomats, instead of including banking, industry, news media, etc., leaders in with them. As I look back in history it seems painfully obvious that CFR's influence as an organization is unprecedented.

Long-term permanent control versus individual influence:

If those who control the CFR chose to rely on individual people to influence the State Department for them instead of having created the CFR, they'd have to keep working on the careers of the individuals one at a time so as older ones retired new ones could get established. And there would be much more traceable links from the influencers back to their "masters". Having the CFR means that the CFR brand name automatically confers acceptence upon new individuals. Those that control the CFR are completely out of the public eye, hidden behind the CFR, while all the members of CFR, old and new, can easily be installed in State Department leadership positions and White House advisory capacities without needing to develop the personal connections to arise to those positions. The CFR is "foreign policy outsourced", a situation that is inherently and invariably dangerous for a nation.