Old-thinker news | Dec. 2, 2007
By Daniel Taylor
“Internationalism must first be a state of mind, an ideal, a chivalry, a religion, before it can be a reality and a system.” — Samuel Zane Batten, The New World Order, 1919
The Rockefeller family, while they are by no means the only major players in world affairs, have contributed large amounts of resources to the creation of a world government. Utilizing vast monetary resources which were initially amassed by the oil empire of John D. Rockefeller Sr., their efforts have gone into nearly every area of significance. From politics, media, to education, the Rockefellers are a force to be reckoned with.  One vitally important and often overlooked method of influence that the Rockefellers have enjoyed is in the realm of the church and religion.
It comes as little surprise, given their long term goal of world government, that the Rockefeller family would approve of and support a societal outlook favorable to globalism. The use of religion is one method that, in Rockefeller’s eyes, looked to be a promising means of accomplishing this goal. Early programs such as the Interchurch World Movement focused on the maintenance of harmonious relations between people in America’s growing industrial society. Later endeavors such as the World Council of Churches would trend towards being global in nature with goals moving beyond that of simply maintaining class stability in America to elimination of national sovereignty and world governance. While some methods have been changed over time, and names of organizations have been altered, the overarching agenda of Rockefeller has remained the same.
As the documents will show, multiple attempts have been made to urge the Christian churches to get behind programs for world governance. If the attempts were not spearheaded by Rockefellers themselves, significant financial support was provided to organizations sharing their vision for the world. A discernable pattern emerges, with the ability to look back at history, that escalating world crises have served as convenient launching points for incrementally larger pieces of the world government agenda. If this pattern continues – and there is little doubt that it will – we will inevitably see greater pieces locked into place after future crises.
On May 31, 2007, speaking in Istanbul Turkey at a conference organized by Akbank , Henry Kissinger alluded to this pattern of crises, stating that,
“…The outcome in Iraq will depend on something that a German philosopher, Immanuel Kant said… someday there will be universal peace. The only question is whether it comes about through human insight, or whether it comes about… through a series of catastrophes of such a magnitude that people are so exhausted that they have no other choice.” 
Utopian ideals of a world civilization and a world government have always existed. No matter how well meaning and egalitarian they may sound, history has shown us that centralized systems almost always lead to corruption and abuse of power. Given the actions of the Rockefeller family in providing support to the Bolshevik revolution,  their instrumental role in the spread of eugenics policies to Nazi Germany,  and David Rockefeller’s proud exclamation, “Some.. believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others… to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it,”  it would seem that the solution of world government is rising out of crises that the proponents of such a system are fostering.
It should be reiterated that while the Rockefeller family has been involved with promoting the ideas of world government and actively pursuing its formation, the idea did not originate with them. Utopians throughout history have promoted ideas of a world civilization and a world government, often with humanitarian aims. For example, as documented by Frederick Charles Hicks in his 1920 book “The New World Order”, Royal Society member John Bellers presented in the year 1710,
“…an elaborate proposal to Parliament for a confederation of states to do away with war. It contained also a proposal for a convocation of all religions.” 
The Interchurch World Movement (1919 – 1920)
In the aftermath of the bloody conflict of World War I, the League of Nations was presented as a solution to the horrendous problems that the world had witnessed. During the same time period that the League of Nations was formed, John D. Rockefeller Jr. launched the Interchurch World Movement (IWM) in 1919.  The Interchurch World Movement was the first attempt by Rockefeller to consolidate the churches into a corporate like structure which would exercise control over their activities. The “stability of government”, and the promotion of “harmonious relations” between people in an industrial society that the Rockefeller family was already dominating was a driving force behind the IWM.
Charles E. Harvey, professor of history at California State University, wrote a history of the Interchurch World Movement in a 1982 paper titled “John D. Rockefeller, Jr., and the Interchurch World Movement of 1919-1920: A Different Angle on the Ecumenical Movement”. Harvey traces the roots of the “social gospel” and the resulting battle between fundamental Christians and liberalism back to Rockefeller’s Interchurch World Movement. Upon investigating the IWM, Harvey found that the historical information that most historians and researchers were using to research the IWM had been directly prepared by the lawyer of John D. Rockefeller Jr., a man named Raymond B. Fosdick. The doctored information, writes Harvey, was “…compiled precisely to conceal the real role Rockefeller played in the organization.”
Harvey documents the request on part of John D. Rockefeller Jr. to his father for millions of dollars to consolidate the churches,
“He wired his father a request for 50 to 100 million dollars to create a foundation that would use the IWM to administratively consolidate the denominations along the lines of big business. The foundation would bind ministers of participating churches in a common pension fund and unite the denominations’ foreign and domestic activities.”
Rockefeller Jr. wrote in a letter regarding the IWM, that the organization could potentially have a larger influence than the League of Nations,
“I do not think we can overestimate the importance of this Movement. As I see it, it is capable of having a much more far-reaching influence than the League of Nations in bringing about peace, contentment, goodwill and prosperity among the people of the earth.”
Harvey presents another letter written by Rockefeller in which he describes the IWM as a smart business investment. Rockefeller writes,
“I know of no better insurance for a businessman for the safety of his investments, the prosperity of the country and the future stability of our government than this movement affords…”
The Interchurch World Movement lasted for a very short time, but it succeeded in planting the seeds of an ideological conflict that has lasted to the present day. By no means did the Rockefellers give up their quest. The centralized structure of churches that the IWM first developed would be put to use in the future under other organizations with Rockefeller financial support.
World patriotism and the federation of the world
As the Interchurch World Movement was gaining momentum, Samuel Zane Batten wrote a book titled “The New World Order”, published in 1919 by the American Baptist Publication Society. In this book, Batten paints a picture of a world entering a new phase in which a “new order” is rising out of the turmoil of World War. Batten proposed that a “world federation” be created which would be supported by an “international mind” and justified by a faith of “world patriotism.”
“World patriotism must be a faith… There is no more justice for the claim of absolute sovereignty on the part of a nation than on the part of an individual… The only alternative is World Federation… with a world parliament… an international court… an international police force… Men must have an international mind before there can be a world federation. They must see and affirm that above the nation is humanity. Internationalism must first be a state of mind, an ideal, a chivalry, a religion, before it can be a reality and a system.”  [emphasis added]
The work of Batten is significant in that the ideas he proposed would be pursued aggressively by Rockefeller and other like minded organizations in the years after the publication of The New World Order.
The belief in a world federation was also held by Harry Emerson Fosdick, the brother of John D. Rockefeller’s lawyer Raymond B. Fosdick, who, as noted previously, was deeply involved with the Interchurch World Movement. Harry was very close to the Rockefeller family and its inner workings, as he served on the board of the Rockefeller Foundation during World War II.  The Riverside church in New York, where Fosdick served as pastor from 1926-1946, was built with money given by John D. Rockefeller Jr. Interestingly, Fosdick held a belief that in the future a federation of the world would be created. Fosdick writes,
“Some day, I predict, a man will rise by whose hands a federation of the world will be so effected, and wars so stopped thereby, that his name will go down across the centuries associated with that great achievement, as Copernicus’ name is with the new astronomy, or Lincoln’s with the preservation of our union. That man will come. Some day he will arise.” 
The Federal Council of Churches
Just as the Interchurch World Movement was presented to the churches as a solution to problems facing the globe after the first world war, the Federal Council of Churches (FCC) presented its own solution in the early 1940’s for a program “for a just and durable peace” upon the end of World War II. Not surprisingly, the Federal Council of Churches – which was merged with the National Council of Churches in 1950 – received significant funding from John D. Rockefeller Jr.  Using a similar corporate structure of churches that the Interchurch World Movement first pioneered, the program developed several agendas for churches to adopt, with world government named as the ultimate goal. As reported by Time in 1942,
“These are the high spots of organized U.S. Protestantism’s super-protestant new program for a just and durable peace after World War II:
>Ultimately, “a world government of delegated powers.”
>Complete abandonment of U.S. isolationism.
>Strong immediate limitations on national sovereignty.
>International control of all armies & navies.
> “A universal system of money … so planned as to prevent inflation and deflation.”
> Worldwide freedom of immigration.
> Progressive elimination of all tariff and quota restrictions on world trade.
> “Autonomy for all subject and colonial peoples” (with much better treatment for Negroes in the U.S.).
> “No punitive reparations, no humiliating decrees of war guilt, no arbitrary dismemberment of nations.”
> A “democratically controlled” international bank “to make development capital available in all parts of the world without the predatory and imperialistic aftermath so characteristic of large-scale private and governmental loans.”
This program was adopted last week by 375 appointed representatives of 30-odd denominations called together at Ohio Wesleyan University by the Federal Council of Churches. Every local Protestant church in the country will now be urged to get behind the program. “As Christian citizens,” its sponsors affirmed, “we must seek to translate our beliefs into practical realities and to create a public opinion which will insure that the United States shall play its full and essential part in the creation of a moral way of international living.'” [emphasis added]
The Federal Council of Churches program, as Time reports, was strikingly similar to Samuel Zane Batten’s New World Order. The ultimate goal was,
“…a duly constituted world government of delegated powers: an international legislative body, an international court with adequate jurisdiction, international-administrative bodies with necessary powers, and adequate international police forces and provision for enforcing its worldwide economic authority.” 
The World Council of Churches (1948 – present day)
The United Nations – which stands upon land that was donated by John D. Rockefeller Jr. – would replace the failed League of Nations in 1945 after World War II. The World Council of Churches continues to function to this day as an organization intimately aligned with the U.N. As with all previous attempts to centralize the churches, Rockefeller played a pivotal role with the WCC. Chateau de Bossey, located in Switzerland, functions as the World Council of Churches Ecumenical Institute. The institute was bought with money given to the WCC by John D. Rockefeller Jr. 
During the 1961 third assembly of the World Council of Churches in New Delhi India, the agenda of world government and a new international order was once again revealed. Interdependence, surrender of national sovereignty, and regional institutions were all themes of the third assembly. Representatives from churches around the world were present, one of whom was Rev. H. N. Riber (U.S.A). Riber, as reported by the third assembly summary,
“…desired paragraphs 61 and 62 [of the third assembly report] to be strengthened because Christians should be ahead of public opinion in requiring the nations to surrender sovereignty in preparation for world government.” 
Paragraphs 61 and 62 of the World Council of Churches third assembly report carry a familiar theme,
“61. But it must be said to new nations as to older ones that the evolution of an international order will require of all a measure of surrender of autonomy and sovereignty for the sake of the world community.”
“62. Peace is dependent not only on goodwill and reconciliation, but in the first place upon the emerging of effective international institutions under the rule of law. Therefore, churches in their desire for peace must recognize the importance of the responsible use and development of international institutions, both in the United Nations and in regional affairs. The aim must be to establish a just system of world order…” 
Today, the World Council of Churches holds over 300 member churches worldwide.  Some members in North America include: Episcopal Church in the USA; Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA; Presbyterian Church; and United Methodist Church. As noted previously, the WCC has maintained its close relationship with the United Nations since its founding in 1948. The World Council of Churches website re-affirms that,
“…it [the WCC] seeks to demonstrate the ecumenical movement’s long-standing commitment to the UN and the ideals embodied in the UN Charter and to give voice to the ethical, moral and spiritual values which must undergird international relations.” 
“Reconceived” theology for a new international order
Reshaping – at the very least re-focusing – religious doctrine, particularly Christianity, to conform to a globalized world is a key facet in the quest for world governance. “The Social Thought of the World Council of Churches”, written by Edward Duff, describes the philosophy that drives the WCC. Duff cites a Rockefeller endowed survey, chaired by professor W. E. Hocking, as a significant contribution to WCC ideals. The “religion of the future”, according to the survey, will represent a “common world culture.”
“A Rockefeller-endowed survey, chaired by Harvard’s distinguished philosopher, Professor W. E. Hocking, concluded that Christianity is merely the highest of the High Religions, a stage in the universal quest for ‘righteousness’, a precious component of the religion of the future that will represent the ‘New Testament of every existing Faith’ and serve as the soul of a coming common world culture.” 
Hocking’s writings provide an important window into the thinking behind this Rockefeller survey. Hocking’s 1956 book, “The Coming World Civilization,” is one such window. In order for a world civilization to come about, Hocking states that Christianity must be reconceived to conform with “global” values and shed its “divisive” attributes. Hocking’s stance can be fairly summarized in this statement,
“Let me put it thus: our Christianity is in need of reconception through a deeper and humbler intercourse with the soul of the East…” 
Hocking foresaw a future world state under which all religions will “…ultimately unite,”
“…having an affirmative and universal goal in history, even though the city to be built, already present in its conspectus – universus hic mundus jam una civitas – is still in its architecture out of sight. On this conception, the religions may, and will, ultimately unite.” 
The age old writings and ideas of utopian philosophers are manifesting into the real world through regional governance, international bodies and organizations. With the faith of internationalism securely embedded into society, the architects of the world order hope to achieve their great dream of world governance.
“And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.
These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.”
“And he saith unto me, The water which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations and tongues. And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. For God hath put in their hearts to fulfill his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled. And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reineth over the kings of the earth.” — Revelation 17:12-18 (KJV)
 Allen, Gary. The Rockefeller File. Seal Beach, California: ’76 Press, 1976
 “Kissinger to speak at Akbank conference.” Turkish Daily News. May 25, 2007. Available at: <http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=74106>
 Clips of this speech can be seen at 18:00 minutes into this video: <http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3777780895480883616>
 Sutton, Anthony C. Wallstreet & the Bolshevik Revolution. Arlington House, 1974
 Black, Edwin. “The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics.” History News Network. 2003. November 26, 2007. Available at: <http://hnn.us/articles/1796.html>
 Rockefeller, David. Memoirs. New York: Random House, 2002. p. 405.
 Hicks, Frederick Charles. The New World Order. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, Page & Company, 1920. p. 71
Interchurch World Movement
 Harvey, Charles E. John D. Rockefeller, Jr., and the Interchurch World Movement of 1919-1920: A Different Angle on the Ecumenical Movement. Church History, Vol. 51, No 2. (Jun., 1982), p. 198-209.
World patriotism and the federation of the world
 Batten, Samuel Zane. The New World Order. American Baptist Publication Society, 1919. p. 117-159.
 lbid 1, Harvey. p. 205.
 Fosdick, Harry Emerson. Living Under Tension. New York: Harpers & Brothers, 1941. p. 228.
The Federal Council of Churches
 lbid 1, Harvey. p. 205.
 “American Malvern.” Time. March 16, 1942. Available at: <http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,801396,00.html>
The World Council of Churches (1948 – present day)
 Duff, Edward S.J. The Social Thought of the World Council of Churches. New York, N.Y.: Association Press, 1956. p. 39-40.
 The New Delhi Report, The Third Assembly of the World Council of Churches. New York, N.Y.: Association Press, 1961. p. 115.
 lbid 2. p. 107.
 World Council of Churches, November 23, 2007. Available at: <http://www.oikoumene.org/?id=3587>
 World Council of Churches, November 25, 2007. Available at: <http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/international/wcc-un-e.html>
“Reconceived” theology for a new international order
 lbid 1, Duff. p. 151.
 Hocking, William Ernest. The Coming World Civilization. Westport Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1956. p. 165.
 lbid 2. p. 184
Note: The significance of John D. Rockefeller’s advisor and lawyer Raymond B. Fosdick cannot be understated. His close relationship with Woodrow Wilson is noted by Will Banyan in his article “Rockefeller Internationalism,”
“That first meeting at Princeton proved to be the start of a long and productive association for Fosdick, with Wilson taking more than a passing interest in his career in the years that followed. During Wilson’s campaign for the presidency in 1912, Fosdick was personally appointed by Wilson to be Secretary and Auditor of the Finance Committee of the National Democratic Committee. He went on to hold a variety of positions in the Wilson Administration, including Chairman of the Commission on Training Camp Activities in both the Navy and War departments. As a civilian aide to General Pershing, Fosdick accompanied Wilson to Europe for the Paris Peace Conference in 1919. During this period, Fosdick also cultivated close relations with Wilson’s enigmatic adviser, Colonel House.
Fosdick obviously made a substantial impression, for in May 1919 he was asked by Wilson to accept an offer from League of Nations Secretary-General Sir Eric Drummond to become an Under Secretary-General to the League. A keen supporter of the League, Fosdick had enthusiastically accepted the offer and, in July 1919, took up his new appointment. It was a significant advance for Fosdick, as it made him one of only two Under Secretaries-General in the League (the other was French technocrat Jean Monnet, the future founder of the European Community) as well as the highest-ranking American in the organisation.”
Sure enough, Wilson’s final testament–he died a month later–reinforced Fosdick’s globalist zeal. Utterly convinced that the only way to ensure world peace was through some form of world government, and that only US leadership could make it happen, Fosdick devoted his energies to trying to influence elite and public opinion in that direction. In 1928, Fosdick published The Old Savage in the New Civilization, which endorsed “a planetary consciousness” and “a collective intelligence”. Fosdick argued that if nations were to co-exist without conflict, then: ” … we must have some centralised mechanism, some established procedure, by which we can determine the understandings and rules of common life … The assertion of the absolute sovereignty of the state has become in our time the supreme anarchy.”
This article can be read entirely here: http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/rockefeller.1.html