Creating a New Society Change Agents and Influence Peddlers
Change agents of yesterday and in the present understand that if culture is to fundamentally shift in a permanent way, then social values must move gradually until a tipping point is reached. For this to occur, institutional hubs must first be altered from within; government, the education system, media and popular culture, religious organizations, and other key societal crossroad need to embrace the new worldview. Once the gatekeepers in those sectors accept the new order, the larger pool of individuals that comprise civilization will experience a push toward transformation - the creation of a new mind for a new society.
Foundations and Transformation
The “top-down” change agents “reforming” our social and political institutions are not difficult to discover. Indeed, for the past one hundred years in the Western World, and the United States in particular, an army of social and policy engineers have been accepted as part of the structural landscape. Enter the “expert” pressure peddlers: The interlocking complex of philanthropic foundations, think-tanks, executive organizations, and high academia.
Today, if you are a person of significant political influence, odds are you’ve spent time rotating between those doors (and probably the corporate/financial world too). This is exactly what has been going on since the days of Andrew Carnegie, Nicholas Murray Butler, Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.3 Indeed, it’s an outgrowth of America’s “Progressive Era.”
All of this said, it must be remembered that not all foundations and think tanks operate as agents of internationalist transformation. But there is a select core of “progressives” that carry this banner, and it is those primary groups we will examine.
Examples of globalist foundations include the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (and other Carnegie organs), the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, and the World Peace Foundation. Similarly minded “intermediate” think-tanks and executive organizations include The Brookings Institute, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Aspen Institute, and the Social Science Research Council. In terms of globalist influence through high academia, one can turn to the London School of Economics, the American Council on Education (more an “executive organization”), the Columbia Law School, the Oxford Centre for International Studies and its Global Economic Governance program, and the historic role of top university personnel as government advisors, foundation directors, and members of major think tanks.
The start-up of the Carnegie-based family of foundations is a prime example of this interlock, and an important one as Andrew Carnegie is considered the father of philanthropic foundations. Consider this history as presented by the Carnegie Institute for Science,
“In 1901, Andrew Carnegie retired from business to begin his career in philanthropy. Among his new enterprises, he considered establishing a national university in Washington, D.C., similar to the great centers of learning in Europe. Because he was concerned that a new university could weaken existing institutions, he opted for a more exciting, albeit riskier, endeavor - an independent research organization that would increase scientific knowledge."Carnegie contacted President Theodore Roosevelt and declared his readiness to endow the new institute with $10 million. He added $2 million more to the endowment in 1907, and another $10 million in 1911."As ex officio members of the first board of trustees, Carnegie chose the President of the United States, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the secretary of the Smithsonian Institute and the president of the National Academy of Sciences. In all, he selected 27 men for the institution’s original board. Their first meeting was held in the office of the Secretary of State on January 29, 1902, and Daniel C. Gilman, who had been president of John Hopkins University, was elected president.”
●The Carnegie Institute of Washington (now called the Carnegie Institute for Science) established the Department of Experimental Evolution at Cold Spring Harbor, New York, thus funding and empowering the eugenics movement, both in the United States and in Germany. [More about “Eugenics and Foundations” in the next article from Forcing Change]
● The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace worked to advance internationalism through the “well-organized and systematic education of public opinion.”5 To this end, the Endowment set up “Mind Alcoves” where special book collections from a globalist and leftist perspective could be made available to the general public.6 And thanks to Andrew Carnegie, the infrastructure for these Mind Alcoves already existed. From 1886 until the 1920s, Carnegie funded the construction of 1,681 public libraries in the United States (and over 800 in other countries).7 In an age when radio was in its infancy and television unheard of, the Endowment’s library program was a masterful tool for shaping education and public opinion. Not surprisingly, this “education of public opinion” converged with the Endowment’s claim of “scientific research” as it related to economics and international law.8 Pulling some of the pieces together, the US Congress Tax-Exempt Foundations report of 1954/55 noted that “a prime purpose of the Endowment was to ‘educate’ the public so that it would be conditioned to the points of view which the Endowment favored.”9
● In reviewing the early annual reports from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, it’s obvious they were deeply involved in shaping American opinion and government policy - partly through supporting “Agencies of Propaganda” and the Endowment’s “Propaganda Fund” - and through its many commissions and departments who directly interacted with policy makers and government offices. To this effect, the Endowment focused on domestic concerns such as education and immigration, and established commissions and agencies to review matters of foreign affairs, including input into war efforts and advocating for world law. The Endowment was also heavily involved with supporting international bodies that interlocked with American and foreign governments, including the Interparliamentary Union, the Pan-American movement, and the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague. By its own admission the Carnegie Endowment was “an unofficial instrument of international policy.”10
This role in foreign affairs was recognized by a Congressional committee chaired by Carroll Reece from 1953 to 1955. Commenting on the Carnegie Endowment, the report quoted the following,
“...[the Endowment has] undertaken vital research projects for the [US State] Department; virtually creating minor departments or groups within the Department for it; supplied advisors and executives from their ranks; fed a constant stream of personnel into the State Department trained by themselves or under programs which they have financed; and have had much to do with the formulation of foreign policy both in principle and detail.”11
“In the international field, foundations, and an interlock among some of them and certain intermediary organizations, have exercised a strong effect upon our foreign policy and upon public education in things international. This has been accomplished by vast propaganda, by supplying executives and advisors to government and by controlling much research in this area through the power of the purse.
"The net result of these combined efforts has been to promote ‘internationalism’ in a particular sense – a form directed toward ‘world government’ and a derogation of American ‘nationalism.’ Foundations have supported a conscious distortion of history, propagandized blindly for the United Nations as the hope of the world, supported that organization’s agencies to an extent beyond general public acceptance, and leaned toward a generally ‘leftist’ approach to international problems.”12
Items of interest included world taxation schemes, the creation of a “people’s” world parliament, United Nations empowerment, and the question of how local administrations (city, county, municipal) could be involved in the growing sphere of international governance. Bill Graham, at that time the Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs, responded during a Q&A session that he supported the idea of a global parliament attached to the World Trade Organization. Funders for this event were the Ford Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation, along with support from Quebec government offices.
Global Governance 2002 loosely fit with some of the pre-millennium projects coming from major foundations and think tanks. During the 1990s, these entities pushed hard for the international community to discuss and adopt some measure of cooperative security; the idea of a global security framework. Some of these projects were based on a single conference, others on a series of research projects, consultations, assemblies, and published findings. In most cases, deep interlock was clearly evident. While some of the ideas were fresh, the basic concept of “world order” that percolated behind these projects was anything but new, for as mentioned before, the World Peace Foundation - backed with Carnegie personnel - introduced one version of collective security in 1912 (see page 16).
“The development of global governance is part of the evolution of human efforts to organize life on the planet, and that process will always be ongoing. Our work is no more than a transit stop on that journey.”19
“One critical role played by think tanks is to provide an idea haven for individuals coming out of the twenty-four-hour demands of serving in a presidential administration... Just as he [Talbott] was preparing to lose U.N. Ambassador Rice and other Brookings scholars to Barack Obama, Talbott was simultaneously wooing outgoing members of the Bush administration to come to Brookings.”24
“Thank you very much… and I’m delighted to be here in these new headquarters. I have been often to, I guess, the mother ship in New York City, but it’s good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department. 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.”