FOUNDATIONS AND A CLOSE LOOK AT FORD
Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
May 19, 2008
Most conservatives believe that Sen. John McCain is clearly preferable
to either Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton as president. However, it should
be remembered that the power elite controls our choices, and Sen. McCain
is also part of their plan. It always bothered me that Sen. McCain has
been able to overlook the North Vietnamese’s lack of cooperation
regarding our POWs and MIAs. However, this was necessary from
the power elite’s perspective if a world government were to be brought to fruition. Another criteria of the power elite is Sen. McCain’s acceptability to Lord Nathaniel Rothschild, who hosted a luncheon for the Senator in London on March 20. I have a letter signed by Prof. Carroll Quigley on November 16, 1949 revealing that after Cecil Rhodes himself, the first member of Rhodes’ secret Society of the Elect “to take the government of the whole world” was Baron Nathan Rothschild in 1889. An outgrowth of Rhodes’ secret plan is the Council on Foreign Relations, which Sen. McCain joined in 1997. Relevant to Rhodes’ plan was an Association to Unite the Democracies as developed by Rhodes Scholar Clarence Streit about 70 years ago. On ABC’s “This Week” (April 21, 2008) hosted by Rhodes Scholar George Stephanopoulos, Sen. McCain advocated forming a League of Democracies. Concerning economics, NAFTA is critical to the power elite’s plan for uniting regional economic arrangements, and Sen. McCain on FOX News (March 26, 2008) said he’s a strong supporter of NAFTA and that it would be “interesting” to have a “free trade agreement” between the U.S. and Europe. Sen. McCain’s primary foreign policy concern is the war in Iraq.
It is noteworthy that while he doesn’t support independence for the Kurds in Iraq (which would anger Turkey), he has supported independence for Kosovo, including arming the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) even though it’s been designated by the State Department as a terrorist organization. The largely Islamic KLA fought against Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic, whose removal was of critical importance to the power elite’s plans. As I’ve mentioned before, the power elite uses crises to move its plan forward, and the next crisis will likely be economic. We’ve already seen the private home mortgage crisis. Author Will Grigg predicts that this fall we’ll have a commercial real estate crisis along with several bank failures, and that in this regard one should look for what happens to Citicorp this fall/winter. This will start a period of hyperinflation or stagflation that will spread globally. The Federal Reserve and other nations’ central banks will intervene one last time by pumping money into their economies. However, this will cause further inflation and devalue the dollar even more. After the November election, in the winter or spring, the next president will face the global economic crisis that will greatly harm national economies and pave the way for the Amero and the call for global economic management as planned by the power elite. The next president will serve only one term. The timetable is set.]
At the beginning of the 1990s, A WORLD IN NEED OF LEADERSHIP: TOMORROW’S UNITED NATIONS (1990) by Erskine Childers and Brian Urquhart was published. It was a study made possible by the Dag Hammarskjold Foundation and by the Ford Foundation, where Urquhart had been a scholar-in-residence since January 1986 after forty years with the U.N., where he had served as chief aide to the 5 Secretaries-General and director of many “peacekeeping” operations (Urquhart’s parents were Fabian Socialists and committed internationalists, and Fabian Arnold Toynbee who supported Cecil Rhodes’ world government efforts was a family friend).
Then in 1992, the Commission on Global Governance was established with Urquhart as a member. The Ford Foundation (along with the Carnegie Corporation, MacArthur Foundation and others) provided support for the work of the Commission, which in 1995 produced a report, “Our Global Neighborhood,” that included the following words: “A new world order must be organized…. Nations have to accept that in certain fields, sovereignty has to be exercised collectively…. We strongly endorse community initiatives to… encourage the disarming of citizens. Acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the World Court should surely be a condition for membership in the United Nations…. We are… in need of a mobilizing principle…. That principle could well be global governance, a genuine internationalism, a new world order that secures the ascendancy of global neighborhood values over divisive nationalism.”
In 1993, the Ford Foundation provided funding for a study titled “Financing an Effective United Nations.” The study was led by Paul Volcker (CFR board member, Trilaterialist, and former chairman of the Federal Reserve) and Shijuro Ogata (Trilateralist) of Japan, and it stressed the importance of the U.N. and noted others’ recommendations that the U.N. be given the authority to tax certain international activities. The Ford Foundation in 1996 sponsored a major study on the “United Nations in its Second Half-Century.”
One of the specific organizations promoting “global governance” and a “genuine internationalism” which has been funded by the Ford Foundation (and Carnegie Corporation, Rockefeller Foundation, etc.) is Parliamentarians for Global Action (formerly Parliamentarians for World Order) with members like former Congressman Jim Leach. This organization supports such things as world-wide demilitarization and an International Criminal Court along with U.N. peacekeeping efforts.
In addition, the Ford Foundation has increasingly funded what has come to be called “political correctness.” A number of examples of this have been revealed in Evan Gahr’s “Paymasters of the PC Brigades” (THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, January 27, 1995). For example, Mariam Chamberlain, a former program officer of the Ford Foundation, estimated that Ford had donated $24 million to women’s studies projects from 1972-1992. In 1990 the Foundation launched its “Campus Diversity Project,” with “diversity panel” members like University of Wisconsin Chancellor Donna Shalala (former Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) soliciting proposals to further campus diversity. By 1992, over $4 million in grants had been made with Ford promising $8 million more over the next five years. The $6 billion Ford Foundation also provided the University of Iowa with the funds for a multicultural reader for a mandatory rhetoric class which has included “Good-bye, Sexist Pig—Say Hello to the New Old Boy.”
Gahr related that
University of Washington Prof. Johnella Butler, project director for
several Ford Foundation grants, “finds curriculum transformation
daunting. In an essay collection titled ‘Transforming the Curriculum:
Ethnic Studies and Women’s Studies,’ Prof. Butler and co-editor
John Walter write, ‘We are only beginning to undo the effects
of the distortions set in motion 500 years ago when Columbus brought
massacre and the most brutal form of slavery known to these shores, all in the interest of spreading “Western Civilization” with all its long-lasting assumptions of racial, cultural and male superiority.’… Outside the ivory tower, many organizations beating the drum for feminist thought receive ample foundation funding. The National Council for Research on Women, which has spearheaded curriculum transformation efforts, received $35,000 from the Rockefeller Foundation in 1972, and $300,000 from the Ford Foundation in 1993…. In other curriculum transformation efforts, Ford designates a ‘point woman’ to dole out the goodies Myrna Goldenberg, coordinator of woman’s studies at Montgomery College in Rockville, MD and project director for a $280,000 Ford Foundation grant to ‘mainstream the scholarship of women into the curriculum.’ She explains that more than individual courses are at stake. It’s ‘not add a woman and stir kind of stuff. We’re hoping for a transformation in how people evaluate and perceive subjects.’ Ms. Goldenberg, whose class syllabus always includes the ‘I am in the world to change the world,’ awarded the money to two Indian tribal and twelve community colleges…. Ms. Goldenberg’s vision fits Ford’s. Program officer Edgar Beckham has expounded the group-think mentality behind Ford’s diversity initiative: ‘Recruiting minorities, including minority issues classes, etc. is not enough. This isn’t about numbers. It’s about a new consciousness of group identities,’ he said in 1992 according to the University of Washington’s faculty newspaper. ‘It’s a myth that all Americans share the same culture. What we share are the terms of discourse. We should be teaching students how to understand difference and negotiate difference. We do a good job of that on an individual level, but not on a group level. The Ford Foundation wants to encourage colleges to use their environments as a laboratory for inquiring into this complex area of life…. After all, we’ve had a mono-cultural university for almost 800 years; the foundation wants to act as an accelerant in a process that’s long overdue.’” Apparently, the Ford Foundation is intent upon shaping our future in a “politically correct” manner.
In a pointed criticism of the foundation’s sponsorship of “political correctness,” Charles Sykes and K.L. Billingsley wrote “Multicultural Mafia” in the October 1992 edition of HETERODOXY, in which they stated: “The Pasadena Doubletree is an unlikely site for a conspiracy…. The dozens of scholars from campuses all over the country who met here late last month did not look like revolutionaries. But behind closed doors of the meeting rooms, the conference on ‘Cultural Diversity Enhancement’ had the tone of one of those ‘by any means necessary’ conventions staged by the SDS in the late 1960s. The subject was how to turn American higher education inside out. It was sponsored by the Ford Foundation, whose strategy for a radical transformation of the university one critic has called ‘the academic equivalent of an ethnic cleansing’.”
The authors related that Henry Ford II resigned from the Foundation in disgust in 1977, and they noted that in talking to Mr. Ford, former Treasury Secretary William Simon indicated that by the late 1960s the Foundation was “engaged in a radical assault on traditional culture under the rubric of the ‘public interest’ and ‘systematic social change’.” Sykes and Billingsley went on to say that the Foundation gave politicized grants to such organizations as the Urban Institute ($3.5 million which it used to produce a 26-volume critique of Reagan Administration welfare policies) and the ACLU Foundation. The authors continued: “By the early 80s, Ford… saw that the university could be (that is, could be made to be) the battleground for an apocalyptic effort to force multiculturalism into the intellectual life of the nation. And this became one of the Foundation’s chief ends…. It was essentially a matter of using lucrative grants to bribe (university) administrators into making the desired changes. Ford is able to function as an invisible government in a field like education…. There is a phrase to describe the basis of the Ford Foundation’s meddling in higher education: the arrogance of power. The architects of its assault on higher education are armchair radicals creating a revolution from above…. But like other revolutions this one does not think in terms of serving informed consumers weighing the pros and cons of its products, but only of imposing its whims on passive victims who must buy whether they like it or not.”
The Foundation’s indirect connection to the “shaping” of education at the pre-college level can be seen in its founding (along with others like the El Pomar Foundation, which provided James Dobson with $5 million to move “Focus on the Family” from California to Colorado) of the Center for the New West. The Center (founded in 1988 and formerly called The Western States Strategy Center) in 1992 submitted the New West Learning Center Design Team’s proposal to the New American Schools Development Corporation. The team’s advisors included Kenneth Boulding and John Naisbitt (MEGATRENDS author), and the proposal called for lifelong learning as well as the use of William Spady’s Transformational Outcome-Based Educational Methods (Spady was a team member). The proposal also indicated that the Mid-Continent Regional Educational Laboratory (where leftist Shirley McCune was located) “will help us in design, finance and governance changes and dissemination.” Prior to this, the Center for the New West had held a $325 per head conference to introduce NAFTA to the Denver business community, including promotional speeches by Mexican President Carlos Salinas and Robert O. Anderson, former chairman of ARCO and the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies. Anderson, working with Joseph E. Slater (formerly of the Ford Foundation) who became president of the Aspen Institute in 1969, made that humanistic institution what it is today.
Today, with international
trade (e.g., NAFTA, GATT) moving us ever closer to the New World Order,
it was inevitable that the Ford Foundation would be involved in this
enterprise, too. Late in 19th century, Cecil Rhodes established a secret
society with the eventual goal being “to take the government of
world.” As part of Rhodes’ plan, semi-secret Round Table Groups were formed (1908-1913) after his death, and they established in England the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA), which would have the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) as its counterpart in the U.S. And on the “Contents” page of the RIIA’s INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS for April 1996, it stated: “This edition of INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS arose out of a collaborative project on trade policy between the International Economics Programme at the Royal
Institute of International Affairs and the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, funded by the Ford Foundation.” This edition contains such essays as “The New Trade Agenda: Universal Rules Amid Cultural Diversity” and “Russia on the Way Toward the World Trade Organization.” Perhaps this will facilitate the “comfortable merger” of Russia and the U.S. mentioned by Ford Foundation president H. Rowan Gaither in 1953, as the prelude to the establishment of a World Socialist Government.
used to establish a world government is the breaking down of national
borders. Relevant to this, the Ford Foundation nationally awarded grants
to radical Hispanics from 1968 to 1992 totaling over $31 million. According
to Henry Santiestevan (former head of the Southwest Council of La Raza,
SWCLR), “It would hardly be an exaggeration to say the Ford Foundation
is the Chicano movement.” SWCLR was founded in Phoenix, Arizona
in 1968 with funding from the Ford Foundation and others. According
to FOUNDATION WATCH (December 2007) published by the Capital Research
Center, “La Raza has relied on federal grants since the 1970s.
It had two federally funded projects in 1976, and two years later the
number had grown to fifteen. La Raza had received at least two congressional
earmarks in 2005: $4,762,000 for housing programs and $496,000 for workforce
development grants…. John Stone, president of the U.S. Freedom
Foundation claims that La Raza has links to separatist ‘Reconquista’
(i.e., reconquest) groups… who agitate for ethnic Balkanization
and dream about reclaiming Colorado, California, Arizona, Texas, Utah,
New Mexico, Oregon and Washington State for indigenous Hispanic peoples.”
Voice of Citizens Together (www.americanpatrol.com) produced a video
showing one of these Reconquista leaders in the western U.S.
saying to 2 blacks “Why don’t you go back where you came from (Africa)?” because this land belongs to Hispanics. On July 14, 2008, presidential candidate Sen. John McCain will address the annual convention of La Raza, which honored him at its tenth annual Capital Awards in 1999.
Massive immigration by Hispanics from Central America into the U.S. is an important component in this effort, and many of these immigrants have entered the U.S. illegally, protected by the Sanctuary Movement and others. This not only effects American jobs, but also the crime rate. According to Mike Cutler, a former senior special agent with the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, “The high number of Americans being killed by illegal aliens is just part of the collateral damage that comes with tolerating illegal immigration."
Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!
There are about 2158 murders committed each year by illegal aliens, which is more than the number of American soldiers killed annually in Iraq. This shouldn’t be surprising given the message sent by Americans to illegals. If the American people continue to overlook aliens entering the country illegally (breaking our laws), why should it surprise anyone that illegals get the idea we are not serious about our other laws (e.g., against theft, murder, etc.) either? And for all those Americans saying we should overlook aliens breaking our immigration laws because they work hard here, what laws do you suppose these Americans tell their own children they don’t have to obey? For part two click below.
© 2008 Dennis Cuddy - All Rights Reserved