“Deep State” Exemplar Peter G. Peterson

“Deep State” Exemplar Peter G. Peterson
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

In a lifetime of privilege, Peter G. Peterson amassed a fortune through a variety of business transactions, served in a cabinet post during the Nixon administration, and became a Wall Street Banker and chairman of the Federal Reserve. He gained such a high reputation among the top promoters of a “new world order” that he won chairmanship of the Council on Foreign Relations in 1985. Serving in that prestigious “deep state” post until 2007, he continued to rack up millions, wrote some books about how our country and the world should be run, cooperated in several destructive initiatives that have harmed America, and passed away at his home in New York City on March 20.

Logo of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. Image from Wikimedia Commons, public domain.

Born to Greek immigrant parents in Kearney, Nebraska, Peterson was found at age 8 working the cash register at the family diner. Excelling in Kearney schools, the bright youngster from very rural Nebraska went off to Massachusetts Institute of Technology, didn’t care for its scientific curriculum, and quickly transferred to Northwestern University where he graduated summa cum laude in 1947. At Northwestern, he and its dean, George P. Shultz, became very friendly. Shultz soon began his work within several administrations as he demonstrated his affinity for internationalism and liberalism. It didn’t take long for Peterson to realize his friendship with Shultz, a CFR member, would open many doors.

Peterson soon became the top executive at Chicago’s Bell & Howell corporation succeeding Charles Percy who moved into the U.S. senate. President Nixon selected Peterson for Secretary of Commerce and even the New York Times described him as “an outspoken liberal.” Out of government, he took over at Wall Street’s Lehman Brothers where he and Stephen Schwarzman got to know each other. The two later formed the Blackstone Group and earned piles of money buying and selling businesses.

Always anxious to gain influence in the political world, Peterson along with Washington Post chairman Katharine Graham, accepted membership in the Brandt Commission, a project of the Socialist International (SI). Former West German Chancellor Brandt, an ardent socialist, led SI during 1977-1980. Only 18 members worldwide were awarded places on this panel formed by one of the world’s leading socialists. No patriotic American would have anything to do with Brandt and his work. But Peterson was pleased to be a part of it.

SI’s interesting history is worthy of a brief recounting. Begun in 1864 under Karl Marx, it suffered through a contentious reorganization in Paris in 1889, endured a similar makeover in Moscow in 1919 (where it became known as the Communist International, the Comintern), and undertook another reorganization in Hamburg in 1923. Since 1951, SI has functioned as the Fifth Socialist International. Brandt would never have chosen Peterson if he were not a partisan for socialism and world government. Unsurprisingly, the former Nebraska whiz kid won his recommendation for a place on SI’s Brandt Commission from World Bank President Robert McNamara, another world socialist.

Under Peterson’s two decades of leading the Council on Foreign Relations, that bastion of liberalism and internationalism continued its efforts to have our nation – and all nations – cede their independence to the United Nations. CFR bigwigs who never repudiate one of their own never backed away when CFR member Richard N. Gardner publicly called for “an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece.” That clearly subversive sentiment, published under the title “The Hard Road to World Order,” appeared in the CFR’s flagship publication Foreign Affairs in 1974. Gardner would later repeat his blatantly subversive message while Peterson was the CFR’s leader. His “Practical Internationalism,” full of suggestions about how to lead mankind into the new world order, appeared in the CFR’s journal in 1988. Never repudiated by Chairman Peterson, it and several predecessors can be considered Peterson’s policy.

During a trip to Taiwan in 2006 (a full year before Peterson stepped away from chairmanship at the CFR), the organization’s long-time president Richard Haass spelled out what the CFR has long desired. His remarks appearing in the Taipei Times included insistence that the idea of “sovereignty of nations” had run its course and the time had come “to rethink this notion.” CFR chairman Peterson, who had awarded Haass his exalted CFR post and tolerated his explicitly stated goal, never lifted a finger to challenge what the CFR president was telling Taiwan’s people and others.

No one ever doubted that Peter G. Peterson was a very bright individual. He could have used his God given talents to support continued independence for the nation that had made life so easy for him. But he chose a totally opposite path. He should be remembered as a significant enemy of virtually all that made America great.

Are you receiving our free weekly e-newsletter? Sign up today! Be sure to also get our free Top Daily Headlines from The New American.


McManus_2Mr. McManus served in the U.S. Marine Corps in the late 1950s and joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966. He has served various roles for the organization including Field Coordinator, Director of Public Affairs, and President. Mr. McManus has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs and is also author of a number of educational DVDs and books. Now President Emeritus, he continues his involvement with the Society through public speaking and writing for this blog, the JBS Bulletin, and The New American.


Tossing Out the Old, Bringing in the New World Order

Tossing Out the Old, Bringing in the New World Order
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton aren’t alone as they seek to build a New World Order. But both are obviously working to toss out the Old and bring in the New.

For more on the New World Order, read “Shadows of Power.”

Mouthed by many over several centuries, “New World Order” is a phrase made prominent by President George H.W. Bush during the months prior to America’s 1991 attack on Iraq. Bush said that the new world order he sought would help to bring on a “reinvigorated United Nations.“

Although the Bush-led “Desert Storm” operation succeeded in defeating Iraq and unseating Saddam Hussein, the other half of the Bush goal,to re-energize the United Nations, didn’t happen. Something else had to be done before world government could be imposed upon mankind. There remained the need to destroy the “old order” before the “new world order” could begin its rule.

By “old order,” we mean a world where morality and genuine religious values are norms for the vast majority of humanity. In simple terms, if the people abide by history’s moral codes and religious values, they won’t leave themselves open to rule by ambitious criminals seeking a tyrannical new world order.

On June 19, 1920, a remarkable Christian Science Monitor editorial warned about the looming power of an organized force seeking world government. The CSM editorialist pointed to a threat emanating from a sinister cabal known as the “Illuminati.” Some of the goals of this evil force were listed as “deification of sensuality, abjuration of all religion and morality, repudiation of marriage, universal license, and the wrecking of civilization.” Then this remarkable piece of journalism quoted one of the Illuminists who, while voicing his obvious contempt for the people and their adherence to an older and more stable order, stated with revolutionary fervor, “… their ideas must be reconstructed, laws must be changed, morals must be changed, men must be changed, things must be changed, yes, everything must be destroyed since everything must be remade.“

Barack Obama, for one, has daringly done much to gain acceptance for homosexuality, same-sex marriage, even the transgender craze. His attacks on various pillars of a stable society amount to an attack on the old world’s civilized values.

In her turn, Hillary Clinton took to the United Nations podium in early 2015 to speak to an assemblage of abortion, same-sex marriage, homosexual, and transgender advocates. Her remarks generated applause from attendees at the Sixth Annual Women in the World conference as she forcefully insisted that the peoples’ “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.” She did her best to speed destruction of the fundamental moral and religious foundations of our nation. Her remarks showed her intention to prepare America for a ghastly New World Order.

These attacks on the old order from the current and would-be president do indeed pave the way for imposition of a “New World Order.” Whether these two prominent individuals possess any knowledge of the Order of the Illuminati and its sinister designs for mankind isn’t known. Nor can we assert with certainty that the two advocate such fundamental changes in America because they are following a long-standing blueprint.

What surely is of importance, however, is that these two and those who champion their efforts are complicit in ushering in the destruction of the old order that has heretofore characterized our nation and the freedom of the American people. The stands taken by Obama and Clinton create a real peril for our nation and its people.

Are you receiving our free weekly e-newsletter? Sign up today! Be sure to also get our free Top Daily Headlines from The New American.


McManus_2Mr. McManus served in the U.S. Marine Corps in the late 1950s and joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966. He has served various roles for the organization including Field Coordinator, Director of Public Affairs, and President. Mr. McManus has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs and is also author of a number of educational DVDs and books. Now President Emeritus, he continues his involvement with the Society through public speaking and writing for this blog, the JBS Bulletin, and The New American.


NATO is a UN Branch Office: Another Reason to Withdraw

NATO is a UN Branch Office: Another Reason to Withdraw
By JBS President John F. McManus

In his recent article where alternatives for a U.S. response to Russia’s designs on Ukraine were discussed, a conservative commentator who calls for “nonintervention” by our nation nevertheless stated, “NATO is outdated and unnecessary.” Obviously, this individual knows little about how NATO came to be, what its chief creators sought, and how it has been used over the years to do the work of its UN parent. So, let’s provide a little history along with reasons why the U.S. should disentangle itself from the pact.

At the close of World War I, President Wilson labored mightily to insert the U.S. into the world government known as the League of Nations. But the Senate refused ratification. The Wilson plan was actually the brainchild of his top adviser, Edward Mandell House, a behind-the-scenes powerbroker who had called for “Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx.” A disappointed House and his disciples, John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, Christian Herter and others, licked their wounds and decided to form a new organization to promote a world government. Their creation, formed during 1919-1921, is the New York City-based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), frequently and correctly identified as the “seat of the world-government-promoting Eastern Establishment.”

In 1945, more than 40 CFR members could be found in the U.S. delegation to the UN’s founding conference. They got their wish when the U.S. Senate approved the UN Charter and our nation became an initial member of the newest world government organization. John Foster Dulles and other disciples of Edward Mandell House (who died in 1938) led the way. Of note is the Charter’s Article 52-54 that gave authority for groups of nations to form “Regional Arrangement” to carry out UN designs.

In 1949 the U.S. Senate – spurred on by Dulles and other and other CFR members – created the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Then-Secretary of State Dean Acheson (a CFR member) championed NATO when on July 8, 1949, he told senators considering U.S. membership that it was “subject to the overriding provisions of the United Nations Charter” and was “an essential measure for strengthening the United Nations.”

One year later war broke out in Korea. The UN decided to respond. Asked how he could send U.S. forces into a UN-led war without the congressional declaration required by the Constitution, President Truman responded: “We are not at war; this is a police action.” He added that, if he could send troops to NATO which he had done, he could send troops to the UN-authorized war in Korea.

In 1954 while serving as Secretary of State and copying the precedent that launched NATO, John Foster Dulles organized the formation of SEATO (Southeast Asia Treaty Organization). It was under SEATO that U.S. forces fought for years in Vietnam with one hand tied behind their backs. President Lyndon Johnson repeatedly confirmed that SEATO was the overall director of the effort. Having no more need for SEATO after Vietnam, it was dissolved. But NATO grew from 12 original member nations in 1949 to 28 today. Led since March 2014 by Jens Stoltenberg of Norway (the successor of Denmark’s Anders Fogh Rasmussen), NATO is no less a creature of the United Nations. And NATO, as most are aware, has been the director of actions in Afghanistan for years.

Much more can be written about NATO to show that it is hardly “outdated and unnecessary.” Calls for NATO to act in Syria, Ukraine, and elsewhere continue. All decisions to respond anywhere with military force or even threats of force will be made, not by Americans even if our nation’s might and personnel are employed, but by the UN’s NATO “regional arrangement.”

A much-needed approach to all of this would have the U.S. withdraw from NATO and its parent United Nations. But with the Obama administration led by CFR members (notably Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel), what’s best for our nation will take second place to the plans of those who are building the New World Order’s world government.