Posted on 05/19/2006 6:56:03 AM PDT by Dark Skies
Did you read all of the post you're referring to? Hedgetrimmer was arguing that the Task Force Document represented the collective opinion of the CFR because he made an honest mistake and incorrectly read and then misquoted it. I specifically corrected that misquote and showed where it said that the report represented the TASK FORCE's conclusion, NOT the CFR's.
It's often hard to distinguish between the transnational progressivism of CFR members and a more moderate "liberal internationalism" and sometimes it's even hard to distinguish between those two and foreign policy "realism", since all three have something in common in that they each tend to deny American exceptionalism.
However, the fact that the membership of the CFR tends to be leftist seems to me obvious, although I don't have the personal experience with any of them (to my knowledge) that Calcow Girl and Rokke do. But you have to remmber that the CFR having a nefarious group agenda would require that people like William F. Buckley have been in on it, and I've never heard him or any other conservative member of it claim there was such a conspiracy.
My motto is to never attribute to malice what I can to incompetence. In one sense, a woman like Secretary Albright could never be accused of incompetence, since she's very bright, knowledgable and on a good day when pigs are flying, can leg press 400 pounds. But in another sense, she is incrdibly incompetent, since she continually develops defective policy proposals, many of them based on the defective premise that the world will be better of if America is less powerful.
My impression is that many, perhaps most of the members of the CFR operate from the same premise. This is not because they get together and in some general meeting agree to accept it. Rather, people who disagree with the idea of American exceptionalism tend to constitute the majority of the graduates for schools of International Relations, and since the CFR is composed of experts in that field, many fo its members will also disagree with American exceptionalism.
But that doesn't mean that everything produced by CFR reflects its opinion. As I said before, that would mean agreeing with Samuel Hungtington, who I presume you think has some good ideas and isn't an elitest internationalist. The Fletcher School doesn't hold collective positions on issues. Why should we assume the CFR emmbers are lying when they say the CFR does not? You can't find something that says "this is the CFR's position on X" by the CFR because it doesn't exist.
The problem with any aspects of leftism within the membership of the CFR cannot be addressed in and of itself. Yes, it exists, but the CFR is if anything more intellectually diverse than many schools of international relations. The answer to that problem lies in ameliorating the leftism of the universities, not that of institutions that require products of the universities.
Sorry, I wasn't bothering about that specific.
I was spring boarding off your comment to try and emphasize that on the whole, in general,
CFR IS DEVOTED, UTTERLY DEVOTED TO A GLOBAL GOVERNMENT.
They may quibble about details and methods from time to time . . . but their goals are essentially the same. I think that's all I was trying to say.
I understand, but look, the Harvard Law School doesn't have a position on the Constitutionality of the Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton decisions even though many, probably most of its members are against it. Not every organization holds official positions, and the CFR is one of those that does not. And the CFR does not greatly influence the foreign policy establishment by any means--- rather, it tends to reflects the conventional wisdom of that establishment.
It should not be equated with, say the Open Society which is devoted to borderless government, drug legalization, Peter Singer style euthanasia laws and the rest. And neither should be elevated into some sort fo boogeyman that is somehow supposed to able to control someone more powerful than than the full complement of eithers' membership, George W. Bush.
Sorry, I meant to say "the Harvard Law School doesn't have a position on the Constitutionality of the Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton decisions even though many, probably most of its members are FOR them."
Do you have a source for this quote?
I understand your point and how it is logical from your perspective and probably that of many others.
I still do not trust the CFR at all. As far as I'm concerned it is extremely dangerous and peopled by folks who are plenty Machiavellian and evil in their goals.
It IS one of the international political forces very committed to a global government; facilitating the networking of same and the putting forth of ever more details and refinements toward the global government.
I don't know if everyone is a satanic ritual baby sacrificer; global government fanatic or not. Probably not. But they are all, to greater or lesser degree working for, contributing toward the global dictator and his government. That much, to me, is inescapable.
"Many organizations involved in the move toward the world government included details of their goals buried in various in-house publications that I had charge of in the Univ Special Collections Dept 1965-1969."
Do you remember this?
Goldwater's 1964 Acceptance Speech
The following is the text of Barry Goldwater's 1964 speech at the 28th Republican National Convention, accepting the nomination for president. Provided by the Arizona Historical Foundation
Excerpt*****
I can see and I suggest that all thoughtful men must contemplate the flowering of an Atlantic civilization, the whole world of Europe unified and free, trading openly across its borders, communicating openly across the world. This is a goal far, far more meaningful than a moon shot.
It's a truly inspiring goal for all free men to set for themselves during the latter half of the twentieth century. I can also see - and all free men must thrill to - the events of this Atlantic civilization joined by its great ocean highway to the United States. What a destiny, what a destiny can be ours to stand as a great central pillar linking Europe, the Americans and the venerable and vital peoples and cultures of the Pacific. I can see a day when all the Americas, North and South, will be linked in a mighty system, a system in which the errors and misunderstandings of the past will be submerged one by one in a rising tide of prosperity and interdependence.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwaterspeech.htm
This speech is a conservative mixture of what I don't know. Most people thought of Goldwater as the conservative of the conservatives until much later in life when he showed liberal tendancies.
To me, this speech spelled out the one world order in 1964. Just change the wording from the Atlantic civilization, to the One World Order, to the New World Order, to globalization.
I saw Goldwater as much more of a corrupt puppet master influenced globalist--and all the more so as he aged. I'd have voted for him if I'd been old enough. But I still did not trust him. I've learned since that he was also more corrupt than I had guessed.
Sigh.
Sometimes, in my MORE paranoid moments,
I even wonder if Rush and O'Reilly are sleeper conservatives building up a mass of conservatives to trust them . . . only to swing at a critical time in support of the globalists. I pray not.
But the globalists are that Machiavellian.
He has been replaced by John McCain, another globalist.
I believe the globalists have been clear with their intentions for years. I agree with you that they have been patient but vigorous in getting their goals accepted. Their aim was for the 21st century and this is the reason for the naming of Agenda 21, IMO.
I wondered more about Sean Hannity.
You're probably right about Agenda 21.
And McChurian.
I see Hannity as very authentic. I actually tink O'Rielly is, too. But I could see Bill O bending to comply with the globalists before I could see Hannity doing it. And, actually, I think both of them have enough personal integrity to resist such.
I think Hannity has enough faith in God to do so. Bill might.
It was very disturbing to see Murdoch help Shrillery with more excessive funding for her political goals.
I think Fox will still be a source for more conservative views than the rest of the MSM--for some time to come. We shall see what happens after Martial Law is declared.
But, it is probably highly doubtful that Murdoch could have amassed his media empire without puppet master approval or help--at least acquiesence.
They exist to influence! Sure, they don't meet the definition of lobbyists, attempting to influence legislation, but their goal is to shape the debate and public opinion thereby influencing the foreign policy agenda that will set the basis for subsequent legislation. They target leaders in all groups of government, industry and society to "educate" them and thereby influence their opinions.
I know wikipedia and about.com aren't the best resources, but here is their description:
Formally established in 1921, it is one of the most powerful private organizations with influence on U.S. foreign policy. It has about 4,000 members, including former national security officers, professors, former CIA members, elected politicians, and media figures. The council is not a formal institution within U.S. policy making.
They are quick to say they don't "influence policy", but their own documents say otherwise. As an example, below is an excerpt from the President's message included in their last annual report. Influencing opinion in all circles is the name of the game.
Simultaneously, we want to increase the time, energy, and resources we commit to a broader set of activities targeted to nontraditional constituencies, such as state and local officials, religious leaders, educators and students, and members and leaders of a broad range of nongovernmental organizations. Many of these individuals and groups are not normally associated with foreign policy, but their voices and support are critical to the policy choices our government makes and will make in the future. We are actively planning various workshops, seminars, and mini-conferences targeted to different groups of leaders whom we hope to engage more meaningfully in the national foreign policy debate.We are also looking at what more we can do internationally. The influential Task Force on North America is one model, for which the Council joined with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations. We anticipate future Task Forces that involve institutions and individuals from abroad.
"My goal is to work as hard as humanly possible to keep California growing, and to improve our quality of life,
to protect our values, and to prepare our people for a global future."
- Arnold Schwarzenegger, February 2006
lol! The only thing I find on google is your posts!
I'm not challenging it; it is similar to other things he's said.
I was trying to collect various quotes, with sources.
I never "studied" Goldwater. But, it does seem to fit the playbill of a NWO.
Do you think the members of those faculties have very different agendas and beliefs than those of the CFR? Of course not. This hearkens back to the leftist envy of right wing think tanks like Hoover and Heritage. Why weren't the left-liberal think tanks like Brookings more visibly powerful? Well, the reason is that Heritage challenges the prevailing conventional wisdom and Brookings (and Foreign Affairs). If the CFR and all its members disappeared, I don't think the foreign policy debates in America would be markedly changed, but if Heritage disappeared, conservatives would suffer a huge loss.
I think you're underestimating the extent to which the the foreign policy establishment leans to the left without the help of the CFR. I mean, was in the bookstore some time back, looking at Foreign Policy, published By the Carnegie Endowment For International Peace. It had an article by Ted Rall in it--- Ted Rall, the guy who had made all those pathetically bigoted cartoons of Condi! Now, you may not like President Bush or Condi, as I do. But TED RALL! I mean, come on--- he makes Boondocks seem like Shakespeare! My point is that complaining about the influence of CFR members is like complaining about the influence of Dan Rather. He's a symptom, not a sickness.
Which he brings me back to John Fonte. Nothing to add, except that I think he's very sharp on this stuff
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.