By Dr George Venturini
Heinz Alfred ‘Henry’ Kissinger obtained a Ph.D. at Harvard University in 1954. His interest was on Castelreagh and Metternich – two empire builders. He devoted his life to sublimate them.
In an incendiary, studiedly defamatory book the late Christopher Hitchens described him as “a mediocre and opportunist academic [intent on] becoming an international potentate. The signature qualities were there from the inaugural moment: the sycophancy and the duplicity; the power worship and the absence of scruple; the empty trading of old non-friends for new non-friends. And the distinctive effects were also present: the uncounted and expendable corpses; the official and unofficial lying about the cost; the heavy and pompous pseudo-indignation when unwelcome questions were asked. Kissinger’s global career started as it meant to go on. It debauched the American republic and American democracy, and it levied a hideous toll of casualties on weaker and more vulnerable societies.”
The story is all here: from the martyrdom of Indochina to becoming the real backchannel to Moscow on behalf of his new client: Donald Trump.
Editor’s note: This outstanding series by Dr Venturini is published bi-weekly (Wednesdays and Saturdays). Today we publish Part Four. Here is the link to Part Three; Who is really Henry Kissinger?
In 1954 Kissinger met David Rockefeller. In time he became intimate adviser to David and the other four Rockefeller brothers. Undoubtedly he knew the history of the Rockefeller family. That relationship tells a million stories about Kissinger’s character and the company he chose.
One should begin with the recent death of David Rockefeller (1915-2017), the youngest of the five brothers, because on the occasion Kissinger displayed his servility to, more than admiration for, his all-life benefactor. On 30 March 2017 Kissinger wrote what could be justly called a love letter for David who had died the day before.
It is dutiful and noble to honour the old saying: De mortuis nihil nisi bonum, but one should always find a limit in good taste. The praise begins with the title of the article requested of The Washington Post: “Henry Kissinger: My friend David Rockefeller, a man who served the world.”
The article opens with the words: “In an egalitarian society such as America, the inheritance of great wealth presents a complex challenge. In an autocratic world, status provides an automatic legitimacy.” But what matters is the title given to the tribute: “ … Rockefeller, a man who served the world.” There follows a cascade of unctuousness.
The Rockefeller fortune is based on oil around companies such as ExxonMobil, Chevron and others.
Leaving aside the grand-father John D. Rockefeller and his peculiar views on the ‘American way of free enterprise’, David and his four brothers: Nelson, John D. III, Laurance and Winthrop–David Rockefeller and their Rockefeller Foundation in 1939 financed the top secret War and Peace Studies at the New York Council on Foreign Relations, the most influential private U.S. foreign policy think-tank which also was controlled by the Rockefellers.
Up until then the Rockefeller Foundation had financed biological research at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Berlin. Actually, it was Nazi eugenics – how to breed a ‘superior race’ and how to sterilise or, better still, kill off those deemed ‘inferior.’ Eugenics, the set of beliefs and practices which aims at improving the genetic quality of the human population, played a significant role in the history and culture of the United States prior to its involvement in the second world war.
Eugenics was practiced in the United States many years before eugenics programmes in Nazi Germany, which were largely inspired by the previous American work. (History News Network, ‘The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics’, by Edwin Black, September 2003, historynewsnetwork.org/article/1796).
The American eugenics movement was rooted in the biological determinist ideas of Sir Francis Galton, which originated in the 1880s. Galton studied the upper classes of Britain, and arrived at the conclusion that their social positions were due to a superior genetic makeup. Eugenics was widely accepted in the American academic community. By 1928 there were 376 separate university courses in some of the United States’ leading schools, enrolling more than 20,000 students, which included eugenics in the curriculum.
After the eugenics movement was well established in the United States, it spread to Germany. California eugenicists began producing literature promoting eugenics and sterilisation and sending it overseas to German scientists and medical professionals. By 1933 California had subjected more people to forceful sterilisation than all other United States combined. The forced sterilisation programme engineered by the Nazis was partly inspired by California’s.
For a long time into the second world war Rockefeller’s Standard Oil – today’s ExxonMobil – also violated American law by secretly supplying the Luftwaffe with scarce fuel. After the war the Rockefeller brothers would arrange for leading Nazi scientists involved in ghastly human experiments to be brought to the United States under ‘new identities’ to continue their eugenics research. Many worked in the Central Intelligence Agency top secret Project MK-Ultra.
Project MK-Ultra – sometimes referred to as the C.I.A.’s mind control programme – is the code name given to a programme of experiments on human subjects, more often than not illegal, designed and undertaken by the United States Central Intelligence Agency. Experiments on humans were intended to identify and develop drugs and procedures to be used in interrogations and torture, in order to weaken the individual to force confessions through mind control. Organised through the Scientific Intelligence Division of the C.I.A., the project coordinated with the Special Operations Division of the U.S. Army’s Chemical Corps. The Agency recruited former Nazi scientists, some of whom had been identified and prosecuted as war criminals during the Nuremberg Trials.
The third paragraph of Kissinger’s tribute to David Rockefeller opens with the words: “Character and integrity were the sources of David’s inspiration.”
A collection of American academics had gathered even before the outbreak of the second world war to plan a post-war world empire – what Time-Life’s Henry Luce would later call The American Century. They made a blueprint for taking over a global empire from the bankrupt British, but carefully decided not to call it an empire. Rather they called it “spreading democracy, freedom, the American way of free enterprise.” The words may be rarely heard from Kissinger’s mouth, but he has always been attracted to what they hide.
Under that mantle the five brothers drew up a geopolitical map of the post-war world and planned how the United States would replace the British Empire as de facto the dominant empire. The creation of the United Nations was a key part of that programme of reconstruction. So, the Rockefeller brothers donated the land in Manhattan for the United Nations Headquarters – and in the process made billions in the increased prices of the adjoining real estate that they also owned. The myth of the Rockefeller ‘philanthropy’ was furthered by such ‘generosity’. They probably saw themselves as modern Medici, and might have felt as spurred by the Medici’s maxim that they had made money to gain power, and from further power they could reach for more money.
After the war David Rockefeller dominated American foreign policy and profited from the countless wars in Latin America, Africa and Asia. The Rockefeller quintet arranged for the ‘cold war’ against the Soviet Union, and was very active in the formation of N.A.T.O. in order to keep a reviving ‘western’ Europe under American vassal status. (F. William Engdahl, The gods of money (edition.engdahl, Wiesbaden, Germany 2009).
In 1952 John D. Rockefeller III, with important funding from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, set up the Population Council, a body governed by an international board of trustees, to advance eugenics, disguised as population research into birth control. Ostensibly, the philosophical underpinnings for the theories of the Population Council are the obsolete theses of Thomas Robert Malthus. Presently the Council board includes leaders in biomedicine, business, economic development, government, health, international finance, the media, philanthropy, and social science.
Importantly though, the Council has its roots in the eugenics movement. The Council was intended to advance eugenics, disguised as population research into birth control. The first president of the Council was a eugenicist appointed by Rockefeller: Frederick Osborn, an American philanthropist, military leader, and eugenicist – in that order of presentation, it seems. His ideas were collected in Preface to eugenics (Harper & Brothers, New York 1940). Leader of the American Eugenics Society, and one of the founding members of the Pioneer Fund, Osborn was vice president or president of the Population Council until 1959. In 1968 he wrote: “Eugenic goals are most likely to be achieved under another name than eugenics.” In 1983 the American Philosophical Society considered him to have been “the respectable face of eugenic research in the post-war period.”
In the 1970s David Rockefeller’s Rockefeller Foundation also financed together with the World Health Organisation the development of a special tetanus vaccine which limited population by making a woman incapable of maintaining a pregnancy, literally influencing the human reproductive process itself – eugenics by any other name!
The Rockefeller Foundation financed university biology research to develop the ‘gene cannon’ and other techniques artificially to alter gene expression of a given plant. The aim of genetically modified organism, since Rockefeller sponsored the disastrous Philippine Golden Rice project, has been to use g.m.o. to control the human and animal food chain. Monsanto’s policy seems briefly expressed thus: “Control the food supply, and you control the people.” Today more than 90 per cent of all soybeans grown in the United States are g.m.o. and more than 80 per cent all corn and cotton. The corporation has research facilities, manufacturing plants and sales offices in more than 100 countries. It has the largest share of the global g.m.o. crops market.
The Rockefeller Foundation advanced the entire field of genetic manipulation through its control of Monsanto Corporation, a U.S. based agricultural and pharmaceutical monopoly with a dark history and a controversial recent past as the producer of Agent orange, widely used in South East Asia during the Vietnam war. It has had questionable relations with Dupont and Dow Chemical Company, as well a Syngenta and B.A.S.F., and recently accepted a takeover offer by Bayer another long-time associate. Of recent, Monsanto seems to have encountered several legal problems (Conflict of interest Questions dog former EPA official, taken to court, 2 May 2017, Liberalviewnews › top-news › 2017 › … › conflict-of-interest…), (Monsanto accused of hiring army of trolls to silence online dissent, 2 May 2017, encyclopedic.co.uk › monsanto-accused-of-hiring-army-of-trolls-to…), but nothing which cannot be solved with the new Administration in Washington!
The Rockefellers – with the Rothchilds, semble – control The Vanguard Group Inc. which owns over U.S. $3 trillion in investments in different companies like Monsanto. They also hold the world’s largest companies such as: JPMorgan Chase & Co., a multinational banking and financial services holding company headquartered in New York City. (Chase used to be fully controlled by the Rockefellers). It is the largest bank in the United States, the world’s third largest bank by total assets, with total assets of roughly U.S.$2.5 trillion, and the world’s most valuable bank by market capitalisation. Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, State Street Corporation, Capital Research Global Investors, and FMR (Fidelity) are all the key owners of – well, essentially the world. One could hazard to say that just four companies control all the big banks and all the major companies on the planet.
In the 1970s Kissinger, by then head of the U.S. National Security Council, prepared the National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (NSSM200). Commissioned in substance by the Rockefeller brothers, it was completed on 10 December 1974; it was adopted as official U.S. policy by President Gerald Ford in November 1975. It was originally classified, but was later declassified and obtained by researchers in the early 1990s.(National Seurity Study Memorandum NSSM200, pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PCAAB500.pdf · PDF file, THE KISSINGER REPORT).
The basic thesis of the memorandum was that population growth in the least developed countries – and NSSM200 named 13 of them: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Turkey, Nigeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Mexico, Colombia and Brazil – is a concern to United States national security, because it would tend to risk civil unrest and political instability in countries which had a high potential for economic development. The policy gave “paramount importance” to population control measures and the promotion of contraception among those thirteen countries to control rapid population growth that the United States deemed inimical to the socio-political and economic growth of those countries and to the national interests of the United States since the “U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad” and those countries could produce destabilising opposition forces against, and “national security threat” to, the United States.
The memorandum recommended for U.S. leadership “to influence national leaders” and that “improved world-wide support for population-related efforts should be sought through increased emphasis on mass media and other population education and motivation programs by the UN, USIA, and USAID.”
The named countries were projected to create 47 per cent of all world population growth. The memorandum advocated the promotion of education and contraception and other population control: “No country has reduced its population growth without resorting to abortion.” It also raises the question of whether the U.S. should consider preferential allocation of surplus food supplies to states deemed constructive in use of population control measures.
As F. W. Engdahl writes, the NSSM-200 prepared by Kissinger “argued high population growth in developing nations with strategic raw materials like oil or minerals were a US “national security threat” as more population demands national economic growth, using those resources internally (sic!). NSSM-200 made developing world population reduction programs a precondition of US aid.” (D. Rockefeller’s Gruesome Legacy, by F. William Engdahl, The death of David Rockefeller, the de facto Patriarch of the American …).
Kissinger summed up both the ‘philosophy’ of the memorandum and David Rockefeller’s world strategy with the following tight ‘reasoning’: “If you control the oil, you control entire nations; if you control food, you control the people; if you control money, you control the entire world.” Only Kissinger could find that an ‘elegant reasoning’.
In 1973 Kissinger secretly manipulated Middle East diplomacy to trigger an Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries oil embargo.
The ‘Arab’ Oil Shock of 1973-74 was orchestrated by a secretive organisation that David Rockefeller had suggested in the 1950s and became known as Bilderberg Group. In May 1973 David Rockefeller and the heads of the major American and British oil companies met in Saltsjoebaden, Sweden at the annual Bilderberg Meeting to plan the oil shock. It would be blamed on “greedy Arab oil sheikhs.” It saved the falling U.S. dollar, and made Wall Street banks, including David Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan, into the world’s largest banks. (F. William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World, Pluto, London-Ann Arbor, MI 1992)
David Rockefeller controlled money alright. He was chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank – the family bank. He was responsible for getting Chase Vice President, Paul Volcker, to become President Carter’s Federal Reserve chairman to make the Volcker interest rate shock that again, like the oil shock, saved the falling U.S. dollar and Wall Street bank profits, including Chase Manhattan, at the expense of the world economy.
Volcker’s October 1979 interest rate ‘shock therapy’, supported by Rockefeller, created the 1980s “Third World Debt Crisis.” Rockefeller and Wall Street used that debt crisis to force state privatisations and drastic national currency devaluations in countries such as Argentina, Brazil and Mexico. Rockefeller and friends such as George Soros then gained the crown jewels of those three countries at dirt cheap prices.
The model was much like the British banks used in the Ottoman Empire after 1881 when they de facto took control of the finances of the Sultan by controlling all tax revenues through the Ottoman Public Debt Administration. Rockefeller interests used the 1980s debt crisis to loot much of the indebted Latin America and African countries, using the I.M.F. as their policeman. David Rockefeller was personal friends to some of the more savage military dictators in Latin America including General Jorge Videla in Argentina and General Augusto Pinochet in Chile, both of whom owed their future fortune to C.I.A. coups arranged by the then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger on behalf of Rockefeller family interests in Latin America.
As Kissinger remembered in his love letter to David Rockefeller, after having “encouraged a discussion group, which later [in May 1954] was developed into what is now known as the Bilderberg Group, an annual meeting of European and American leaders to explore their challenges and common purposes, [a] decade later, David called on me.” At the time Kissinger was Secretary of State, and David wanted “to inform me that, in the view of some of the colleagues he had brought with him, the scope of U.S. foreign policy needed broadening. A truly global study to include Asia was required for that challenge. His associates, in fact, included Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale and Zbigniew Brzezinski; in other words, a government in exile waiting to replace the [Nixon] administration in which I served. But David’s combination of dedication and innocence was such that the thought never took hold. Instead, [in 1973] I became a founding member of the Trilateral Commission, which thrives to this day.”
Through organisations such as [Rockefeller’s] Trilateral Commission, ostensibly to foster closer cooperation among North America, Western Europe, and Japan, David Rockefeller was the foremost architect of the destruction of national economies and advancing so-called Globalisation, a policy which mainly benefited and still benefits the largest banks of Wall Street, of the City of London and of select global corporations – the same which became funding members of the Trilateral Commission. Rockefeller set up the Trilateral Commission in 1973 and assigned his close friend Zbigniew Brzezinski to the duty of choosing its members in those countries.
As F. W. Engdhal concluded: “If we speak of an unseen, powerful network some call the Deep State, we might say David Rockefeller saw himself as Patriarch of that Deep State. His true acts deserve to be honestly seen for what they were – misanthropic and not philanthropic.” (D. Rockefeller’s gruesome legacy, 31 March 2017).
Kissinger would disagree of course. Of the “man who served the world” he would say:
“Service was one facet of David’s life. Devotion to his family was its equal. In 1979, when the Shah of Iran was being exiled, some close friends appealed to David to help find refuge for a ruler who had demonstrated his friendship with America in various international crises. David regretfully refused because of his obligation to Chase Bank.” (Not quite so, actually). Rockefeller helped the Shah, despite any negative commercial consequence to Chase Bank. What Kissinger fails to mention is a little detail: the Shah was exiled from Iran during the 1979 revolution because he was a puppet of the American administration, having been installed through a coup d’état against the government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. Mossadegh was the head of a democratically elected government, holding office as the Prime Minister of Iran from 1951 until 1953, when his government was overthrown in the coup jointly organised by the Central Intelligence Agency and the United Kingdom’s Secret Intelligence Service.) Undeterred by the truth, Kissinger continued and concluded: “… David assumed the task and helped the Shah find refuge, first in Mexico, then in Panama, regardless of the commercial impact of the decision.
David would often mention departed friends with whom he had shared part of his life. They would merge in his recital as if still part of a continuing, never-ending effort. Now, as he joins their number, he will be in our mind as a permanent part of our life, and to our country he will remain a reminder that our ultimate legacy will be service and values, not personal ambitions.” One can hear in the background a noisy crescendo by a Hollywood gigantic orchestra.
The best chance to become a political adviser, and given the reputation that Kissinger built and cultivated during the following twenty years, came to Kissinger at the time of the 1968 presidential campaign. If one pays attention to the careful biography by Walter Isaacson (Kissinger, a biography, Simon & Schuster, New York 2005) Kissinger had been openly and un-characteristically for him spoken quite scathingly about Nixon. But he changed his mind when it appeared as though Nixon might win. He had been until then allied with Democratic candidate Hubert Humphrey. Suddenly he began to ingratiate himself with the Nixon camp. According to Stanley Karnow’s Vietnam: A History (Penguin Books, New York 1992) he even began clandestinely to supply the Nixon campaign with information about Humphrey’s plans.
Nixon realised that he had found his consigliere.
Once in office, Kissinger and Nixon proclaimed that they were seeking “peace with honour.” Abandoning their South Vietnamese allies would have seemed a dishonourable betrayal and would have undermined the United States credibility in the world. In the end there was not much honour in what followed: they did precisely the contrary of what they had proclaimed. Disregarding for a moment how events unfolded, the “peace with honour” formulation was riddled with flaws. And the South Vietnamese regime was known to have been inept and hopelessly corrupt. Writing about the importance of his allies in South Vietnam, (Ending the Vietnam War: A history of America’s involvement in and extrication from the Vietnam War (Simon & Schiuster, New York 2003), Kissinger gives minimal attention to the Vietnamese people but a great deal to South Vietnam’s Nguyễn Văn Thiệu – a general in the southern army who in 1965 became the head of a military junta, had himself elected as president and occupied that position until Saigon was liberated in April 1975. Kissinger refers to him as ‘a great patriot’ and a ‘dauntless leader’.
Next installment Wednesday: Madman diplomacy
Dr. Venturino Giorgio (George) Venturini, formerly an avvocato at the Court of Appeal of Bologna, devoted some sixty years to study, practice, teach, write and administer law at different places in four continents. He may be reach at George.Venturini@bigpond.com.au.
138 total views, 2 views today