As might be expected, the use of foundations to advance an Orwellian style agenda hidden behind lofty-sounding goals did not originate with Rockefeller, Carnegie and Ford. In 1984 author-researcher Eustace Mullins penned a brief history of foundation influence in the United States, as follows:
We have read ad nauseam about men of great wealth who, after careers of astounding ruthlessness while amassing their fortunes, suddenly underwent a profound conversion, like [the Biblical] Paul, and became men of goodwill
From the outset, American foundations have exhibited a twofold image in front is the tireless do-gooder who balks at nothing if it serves a good cause. Behind him are the evil conspirators who are intent on preserving and increasing their wealth and power.
The foundation in its present form, originated in the concept of a Boston family, the Peabodys. Henry James in his novel The Bostonians, ridiculed a family friend, Elizabeth Peabody, for her fifty years of relentless humanitarian zeal, portraying her as the legendary Miss Birdseye.
[Meanwhile] George Peabody, after slave trading operations in Washington and Baltimore, moved to London, where he was set up as a front by the Rothschild family. He amassed a fortune by buying up depressed stock in American panics, and chose a Boston trader, Junius Morgan, to carry on his business. In 1865, Peabody set up the first large-scale American foundation, the Peabody Educational Fund, endowing it with $1 million in government bonds. By 1867, this had grown to $2 million; by 1869, $3.6 million.
Ostensibly set up to educate Southern Negroes after the Civil War, it was a key operation in the carpetbagger strategy to gain control of Southern lands and to control their state governments. These states had to borrow heavily from Wall Street bankers to rebuild their services, and they remained deeply in debt for the next century.11
With respect to the Civil War, evidence clearly suggests that the Civil War itself was a carefully laid plan to usurp the monetary independence of the United States and create a financial empire centered on Wall Street from which the country as a whole would be governed from behind the scenes. Trial attorney and former law professor John Remington Graham summarizes the conclusions for the case he lays out as follows:
The divisive antagonisms between the North and the South, finally erupting in the spring of 1861, were not unfortunate historical accidents, nor the result of some inexorable momentum in events. Those antagonisms, rather, were deliberately agitated during the 1850s by great international banking houses with a preconceived motive of provoking secession. And secession was to be used as a pretext for a bloody war of conquest
The war was planned to generate a stupendous national debt, mostly represented by bonds
the private interests acquiring these bonds successfully plotted to secure the passage of legislation which enabled them to convert them to the paper by them acquired in financing the war into a new and dominant system of banking and currency under their ownership and control. And those private interests fully succeeded in their sinister program, and set up a huge financial empire centered on Wall Street from which they have ever since governed the United States behind the scenes
[Moreover], the great banking houses in Philadelphia, New York, London and Paris did not like [the Lincoln greenback, originally issued debt free by the Treasury] because they could not control it in other words, they could not convert it into a profitable venture for themselves.12
Graham essentially lays out the case, in lawyerly fashion, that over the two or three decades leading up to the Civil War the international money powers were able to manipulate we the people and our government in such a way that radical voices on both sides of the manufactured divide became the only voices heard. Passions thus aroused created fertile ground for war.
Like Graham, general council for the Reece Committee Rene Wormser was not content to focus on the narrow issues prescribed by the media or the propagandists. Speaking of the post World War II period during which we faced the communist threat Wormser would bemoan the fact that the emphasis on a search for organized Communist penetration of foundations absorbed much of the energy of the investigators [for the Reece Committee] and detracted somewhat from the efficacy of their general inquiry into subversion.13
In similar fashion to Graham, Wormser became far more concerned with the broader picture of a newly emerging American financial elite that could wield massive amounts of political clout through the size of its wallet and the strength of its own intricate, interlocked power structure. Neither the media nor the Congress paid attention to Wormsers broader concern, and national attention remained directed at the so-called Communist threat until it was replaced by the Cold War. Antony Sutton and others tried to expose the Communist threat and the Cold War for what they were but no one listened to them either.
It is worth noting that tax exempt foundations were not the only tool employed by money powers because concomitant with them came the deliberate infiltration of grassroots groups and development of tools such as the left/right political spectrum as a means by which to control the public debate.
Thus, as Georgetown professor Carroll Quigley wrote in his 1966 Tragedy and Hope: More than fifty years ago the Morgan firm decided to infiltrate the Left-wing political movements in the United States. This was relatively easy to do, since these groups were starved for funds and eager for a voice to reach the people.14
In 1913, and writing about the same time period as Quigley, Charles Lindberg Sr. wrote in his book, Banking and Currency and the Money Trust that The [money] interests have done everything that has been possible for them to do in order to divide the people of this country into factions commonly known as political parties, because it was in their interest to do so
Partisanship is factional government and not national government
Partisanship has been the cause of retarding all social progress.15
In 1983, Antony Sutton would write in his book Americas Secret Establishments , More effective than outright censorship is use of the left-right political spectrum to neutralize unwelcome facts and ideas or just condition citizens to think along certain lines.16
So it is that in the final analysis and despite the evidence uncovered by the Cox and Reece Committees about left gate keepers, it strains credulity to think that only the ideological left was or is controlled by gate keepers. As it turns out, Wormser was right: there was the broader concern of subversion that needed attending to.
k:
