Jump to content
The Education Forum

Thy Will Be Done: Nelson Rockefeller and Evangelism


Recommended Posts

This is the best book ever. Its is so good that I will spare you my traditional hyperbole. It's not going to work.

I should say that the full title is

Thy Will Be Done: The Conquest of the Amazon: Nelson Rockefeller and Evangelism in the Age of Oil

I will soon be typing some examples of new things I learned from this book. I read it as a break from JFK reading. Turned out the whole thing was about the JFK assassination> wide angle.

Has anyone else read this?

The authors are Gerard Colby and Charlotte Dennett.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner
Has anyone else read this?

The authors are Gerard Colby and Charlotte Dennett.

No Nat, but due to your recomendation I now fully intend to. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the best book ever. Its is so good that I will spare you my traditional hyperbole. It's not going to work.

I should say that the full title is

Thy Will Be Done: The Conquest of the Amazon: Nelson Rockefeller and Evangelism in the Age of Oil

I will soon be typing some examples of new things I learned from this book. I read it as a break from JFK reading. Turned out the whole thing was about the JFK assassination> wide angle.

Has anyone else read this?

The authors are Gerard Colby and Charlotte Dennett.

A review (and summary) by Puerto Rican journalist Carmelo Ruiz: http://www.cephas-library.com/church_n_sta...evangelism.html

Nathaniel's post and comments prompted me to order a copy here: http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResu...amp;x=0&y=0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This book is so eclectic that nothing is "representative." That said, I found its description of the Rockfeller Commission of 1975, to be provoctive and perhaps usefull in placing it in historical context of prior and later developments in the CIA's negotiation of the 1970's (1970's negotiation of the CIA?)

The authors put the commission in terms of a post-Watergate control mechanism for information about past CIA abuses. They see Watergate as a reprisal by the CIA against Nixon after Nixon threatened to use old CIA stories as blackmail with the goal of getting Helms to cooperate in the Watergate Coverup.

(I wonder to what extent the Hunt forgeries of documents blaming Kennedy for the Diem killings were central to this.Even Bland Ghost Writer, Stanley Kutler acknowleges " on June 19 Colson urged that Howard Hunt's White House safe be confiscated....Later that afternoon Dean and his Associate Counsel,

Fred Fielding, sifted the contents of Hunt's safe, finding evidence of more"dirty tricks," including an attempt to fabricate a direct link between President

Kennedy and the assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem" (The Wars of Watergate, p. 216). Writer J. Anthony Lukas, offers much more on the

attmepts to link Kennedy to Diem:

Two days later, at a meeting with Haldeman, Ehrlichman, and Mitchell, the President discussed a political strategy which

would keep the origins of the Vietnam War "front and center so that the Democrats would "squable about it." They agreed

that the "Diem incident" ws the "best ground" for attack because it involved both Averill Harrima-- a Muskie supporter--

and Ted Kennedy. Nixon suggested that several Republican senators might pick up his accusation of September 16th and

' demand that Conein be released from the silence" required by the CIA regulations. "Let the CIA take a whipping on this,

Nixon said, demanding that the agency deliver its "entire Diem file" immediately. (Nightmare, p.91)

Lucas claims that the initial purpose of this creative autopsy of the Diem murder was to hurt the campaign of Ted Kennedy, especailly among

Catholics, by claiming to prove that JFK had ordered the killing of a fellow Catholic. But in the above quote its as if he is trying to kill at least one other

bird with a wider shotgun approach. But what of his comment on letting the CIA 'take a whipping'? Does it suggest that Nixon himself thought that the

Conein and Kennedy were on the same page about Diem, when they really were not? With this wide angle blast, was Nixon threatening to raise questions that might have shown that the CIA was following its own agenda with the Diem Killing? And was Nixon aware that this would happen?

Lucas also offers an interesting quote from Hunt that makes it seem like Hunts forged JFK-Diem documents originated at the suggestion of the White House

(Colson) and not the CIA:

After about a week, Colson asked him, "What kind of material have you dug up in the files that would indicate Kennedy

complicity in Diem's death?" Hunt said that nombody who read the cables would have any doubt about it, but no single

cable would establish it. 'you'd have to take a sequence of there of four cables, be aware of their context, and speculate

on what was contained in the cables missing from the sequence. According to Hunt, Colson asked, 'Do you think you

could improve on them?' Hunt said he would need technical assistance, particularly in finding the original typwriters

on which the cables had been typed. "Well, we won't be able to give you any technical help," Hunt recalls Colson saying.

This is too hot. See what you can do on your own" (Nightmare, p. 91)

All of this makes me wonder if the Diem killing and its very contested narration was not very high up the list of reasons that the CIA felt they had to get

to take serious steps in getting rid of Nixon.)

Note these paragraphs leading up to the creation of the Rockefeller Commission:

In Hersh's New Year's Eve story, " the Bay of Pigs thing" resurfaced with potentially astounding implications: "The Times reported

Sunday that the new domestic unit was formed in 1964 but Mr. Hunt realled that it was assmebled shortly after the failure of the Bay

of Pigs operaion in 1961. Many Agency men connected with that failure were shunted into the new domestic unit' Hunt placed the date

of its founding in 1962, before, not after the Kennedy assassinaiton, and noted that Helms was strenuously opposed to its establishment.

Who, then, ran this secret operation of Bay of Pigs veterans? (Morales with his AMOT connections he had developed prior to the invasion,

who he then siphoned of to Fort Bennning, separate from the other group of returning BOP veterans?????) According to once source at the

DIA, such opperations fell within the domain of the Clandestine Services chif of the Western Hemishphere Division: Nelson Rockefeller's

old friend from CIAA days in the Brazilian Amazon, Colonel J.C. King.

Four days later, after an even more sensitve oral briefing by Colby in the White House, President Ford announced that he was appointing Nelson

Rockefeller to head an eight-member "blue-ribbon commission (including Nelson's old friend and coinvestor in Belgian Congo properties,

C. Doulas Dillon) to probe the CIA's illegal operations n the United States. (Thy Will Be Done, p. 735)

J.C. King. After reading this book, which is chock-full of ties between King and Neslon Rockefeller, I am wondering if I, for one, may have underestimated

his involvement in the original multi-faceted assassination plan, the one that would have culminated in a US invasion of Cuba. Recall that he was very

involved in the development of the original BOP invasion plan, and undoubtedly knew of the points in the 1959 and 1960 Castro assassination points that

would could have either directly or indirectly implicated Nixon and old FBI contacts from WWII days when the FBI was stronger in Latin America. King is also described as one of the strongest detractors from Kennedy's Alliance For Progress.

It is also worth noting that King began his career in Latin America while working for Johsnon and Johnson, the US drug company who dug a lot of the

Amazonian ingredients. Later, with Rockefeller money he created a front for MK-ULTRA research called the (Amazon Natural Drug Company). He was heavily involved in the Brazil coup of 1964, the one that Rockefeller's man on the WC found considerably more interesting than attending meetings with

Earl-- because of Rockefeller mining investments, among many many others in Brazil.

(Nelson Rockefeller) recommended keeping secret what ins some cases even Colby though unnecessary.(Recall Colby's

by [assisted?] canoe in 1996 N.H.) But Neson had personal,not just official, reasons for secrecy. As Eisenhiower's under

secretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) and then as his special assistant on Cold War strategy

and psychological warfare, Nelson knew about many of the CIA's covert actions, including the mind-control experiments

(which were funded partyly through the HEW) and assassination plots. Indeed, as chairman of the National Security Council's

Special Group, he was briefed on ALL covert operations and would have had to approve someo of the most questionable ones,

including coups and assassinations abroad and continuting mind-control experiments at home.

President Ford was particulary interested in having Nelson "look into this assassination business" Nelson understood the

implications immediately. He already knew about the attempts on Castro's life and the theory that such attempts had

backfired on Kennedy in Dallas "This was another way of chopping my head off and getting me out there where I was the one

who was putting the finger on the Kennedy's, see, as chairman of the committee. Also getting me into an impossible hope

because I happened to know this thing had been investigated a good many times there was a lot of very interesting leads.

With a lot of intersting leads why was it so impossible? By "chopping my head off" was Nelson here implying that his own investigation was limited

becasuse it could lead to Nelson Rockefeller and his close associate J.C. King? This "chopping my head" head off seems to be open to a number of

different interpretations.

Faced with Nesons's threat to resign, Ford dropped his insistence on a written report on this specific subject. But the investigation would

go forward.Neson began assembling the case for a Castro-Kennedy Assassination link. 'We got this information and we put it together

and it was hot' (This piecing together sounds similar to the alledged Hunt-Colson plan of four years before. Nixon had previously thought

of emphasizing Kennedy-Castro assassination alledged ties, before setteling on JFK-Diem instead N.H.) ...... Unable to find any evidence

that proved the Kennedys had ordered the CIA to try to kill Castro, Nelson gave up the investigation. Avoiding having to report "got

the President off the hook, got me off the hook, got it right where it belonged: in the Congress.

Despite Neson's claim that he was sticking ot the commission's original madate to invstigate only the CIA's domestic activities,

some activities that bore on oprations overseas were addressed in Nelson's report, but in a highly contained and selective manner.

The CIA's illegal cooperation with the NSA in monitoring phone conversations by narcottigs traffickers between Latin America and the

US in 1973 was considered a worthy target for criticism; the CIA's ties to American cocaine traffickers operationg between the United

States and Columbia were not.

The CIA's support for the activiteis of the Cabinet Committee on narcotics Control, including invstigations abroad, was reported; the

involvement of the CIA's Air America in the transport of the very Southeast Asian heroin that the committee was so concerned about

(and ultimately reported the futility of trying to stop) was not.

Nixon's abuse of the CIA on such matters as access to files and equipment, Watergate, and requisitioning more than $33,000 from

the CIA to pay for White House responses to mail on the Cambodia invasion was fair game; The CIA's conspiring with mobsters and

Cuban exiles in the US to assassinate the Cuban head of state was not. Newither was the CIA's abuse of the names of President

Kennedy and Attorney General Robert Kennedy after the missile crisis to continue these assassination attempts illegally and without

authorization.

While taking a properly critical tone and makig some sound structural and procedural recommendations to correct the most glaring

errors of process and of the government's line of authority, Neson, in most cases, projected confidence in the Agency's claim that

the abuses had been stopped and reforms had already been enacted, including a prohibition against the assassination of foreign

leaders. He did not mention the CIA's unauthorized storage of curare, cobra venom, shellfish poison, and other toxins and biological

weapons, in direct wiolation of President Nixon's executive order of February 1970 to destroy the stockpiles. Among the scientists

collaborating with the CIA in the illegal storage of these biological weapons were four scientists at Rockefeller University (p.736-737,

They Will Be Done)

The authors present the Rockefeller Commission as an CIA controlled revelation of some of their secrets, that was made necessary by its

conflict with Nixon over Watergate, and at the same time a sign of the CIA's triumph over another president who thought he could control it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

J.C. KING> GARLAND "DEE" WILLIAMS> MIKE TSALICKIS> MKULTRA

First let me note again that this book argues that the assassination of JFK and his replacement by LBJ marked a significant turning point for

Latin America. Under LBJ the, the book argues, the US was much more tolerant of dictators, and even helped install them. Also, urged

Nelson Rockefeller and his many business contracts in South America and its governments and by his many contacts inside virtually every

agency of the US government, LBJ was much friendlier to direct US investment concerns in South America as compared with JFK.

After the coup of 1964, the CIA and the Brazilian Intelligence did a many things to unify South American governments with US Cold War

ideology, which meant that anyone suggesting nationalization of natural resources must be a stooge of Moscow.

Who here has heard of Mike Tsalickis? He was promoted in National Geographic as The Tarzan of The Amazon and his career smells of

other things besides the Rosewood he exported. He began as an exporter of exotica animals in 1946, with his business based in Tarpon

Springs, Florida, just north of Tampa. Next he became involved with the new St. Petersburg airline Aerovias Sud Americana (ASA)

* Then in 1953 he convinced ASA to try a freight line between Leticia, Bogata and Panama

* After being faced with new competition Mike T. made two "fateful business decisions in 1957": he went into the business of

shipping research animals, "especially the white -lipped marmoset and the squirrel monkey"

* He also set up a Rosewood exporting company that worked closely with an ex-Nazi who had escaped to Argentina through

the ratline in 1946, when JC King was on the receiving end. This ex Nazi went by the name of Von Steinbeck and he was

involved in exporting cocaine. Later Mike T. would be arrested in a scheme involving the shipping of lots of cocaine inside

hollowed-out rosewood logs.

OK let me now quote this:

That year(1966) King opened shop in Iquitos and hired Mike Tsalickis as ANDCO's supply agent in Leticia. In May

the State Department also opened shop in Leticia, setting up a U.S. consulate with some fanfare and appointing

Tsilickis as unofficial U.S. Consul...... Tsalickis's involvement with ANDCO's notorious Dee Williams, however, raised

some eyebrows. Williams hired Tsalickis just as the Amazon's Tarzan was expanding the research side of his animal

export business. In 1967, Tsalickis bought an island in one of the Amazon's remote tributaries between Leticia and

Iquitos.......Yet the extraordinary security measures Tsalickis took inspired rumors. A staff of eighteen men armed with

walkie-talkies partoled the island, keeping out intruders and maintaining the island's isolation. Tsalickis's customers

inside the US included the US Naval Toxicology Unit, the US Army, and many research institutions where scientists had

been involved in MKULTRA experiments. The monkeys were used in a wide range of experiments,including tests for

cancer viruses, brain tumors, poisons, and psychoactive drugs.... But it was the 1975 arrest that revealed that more

was at stake than drug smuggling. Between the arrival of Dee Williams in 1967 and Tsalickis's first arrest eight years

later, the CIA's counterinsurgency operations in Bolivia, particularly-- but also in Peru and Ecuador-- greatly enhanced

the power of drug-smuggling uniformed warlords and Nazi refugees. The Springboard for these operations and their

onerous result was the search for J.C. King's old prey, Che Guevara. (pp. 519-523, Thy Will Be Done)

Is this the same Garland Williams who played such an important role for the Federal Bureau of narcotics? Douglas Valentine writes

in his FBN history:

Curiously, a CIA officer named Garland "Dee " Wlliams arrived in Peru in 1967 as ANDCO'S Director of Operations. THis

is intriguing, first because Garland H. Williams is such an important figure in FBN history, and because he retired from

government service in May, 1964, which left him available for a secret assignment in South America. Our Garland Williams

was a career narcotic agent, and Garland "Dee" Williams "knew the way of drug smugglers" Our Garland was a professional

soldier and dedicated anti-communist, and "Dee" Williams and J.C. King used ANDCO as a cover to advise Peru's special

forces in jungle warfare operations, so they could combat the indigenous people and their Cuban advisers. Furthermore,

our Garland had a background in Chemical warfare, and may have helped George White set up the MKUTRA pad in San

Francisco, while Garland "Dee" Williams was involved in MKULTRA research. To this end he hired exotic animal exporter

Mike Tsalickis as his guide. Tsalickis based his operation in Leticia on the Amazon River, where Peru and Columbia rub

shoulders. While serving as the government's consular officer in the region, Tsalickis helped Williams and King obtain

plant specimens for use in post-MKULTRA projects.

Arrested for smuggling over a ton oc cocaine into Florida in 1988, Tsalickis was still in prison in 1996 when the author

sent him a photo of former FBN agent Garland H. Williams and asked if the man in the phot was Dee Williams from ANDCO.

Tsalickis said he was not. garland Williams's family insists that after leaving Africa in 1963 and retiring in 1964, he married

and settled down near Memphis Tennessee.

Despite this curious case of the name "Garland Williams" appearing in regard to an espionage affair with a drug angle--for

there was also the "Colonel Williams" who funded the Pawley-Cook public relations blitz in Taiwan in 1950-- it seems more

than more coincidence that the CIA was present at the hub of world cocaine production in 1966, just as Ricord's Group

France, with Mafia financing through Tom Buscetta was organizing the business into a global industry. (Douglas Valentine,

The Strengnth of the Wolf: The Secret History of America's War On Drugs, p. 385)

Colby and Dennett's book make abundantly clear the J.C. Kings "retirement" was about as Semi as conceivable. There is probably no other

book with as much on J.C. King.

Edited by Nathaniel Heidenheimer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the best book ever. Its is so good that I will spare you my traditional hyperbole. It's not going to work.

I should say that the full title is

Thy Will Be Done: The Conquest of the Amazon: Nelson Rockefeller and Evangelism in the Age of Oil

I will soon be typing some examples of new things I learned from this book. I read it as a break from JFK reading. Turned out the whole thing was about the JFK assassination> wide angle.

Has anyone else read this?

The authors are Gerard Colby and Charlotte Dennett.

I ordered it from Amazon. Been looking for material on the Rockefellers link to President Kennedy. Thanks Nathaniel.

...

Now are there any cheap books you'd like to recommend?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Myra I'm full of cheap, p(or)tentous recommendations, but if I make another here it could lead to poor health.

Check this out on Kennedys and Coups in Peru:

July, 1962. "The indefatigable leader of Peru's Indians, Haya de la Torre,head of the reformist APRA"party is in power, sort of:

Haya's program of nationalizatin an 'Indo-American' unity, meanwhile threatned industrialists, the military, and the

more conservative covert operatives in J.C. King's Western Hemisphere Division of the CIA. Haya's APRA was the only

popular based alternative to the growing influence of Marxism and Castroism, but King's operatives did not see it that

way. When the generals decided to act, the local CIA station did nothing to deter them.

With the military coup, the immediate threat of APRA coming to power was removed. President Kennedy, however, was

unhappy about the coup's damage to the democratic image and social goals of the Alliance for Progress.

Kennedy sensed that the Alliance's democratic ideology was on the verge of being surrendered to the tired cynicism of

Realpolitik. He could no longer sit on the sidelines. He broke diplomatic relations with Lima and suspended 80$ million

in credits and all military aid.

" The declaration of the peoples of America adopted at Punta del Este," Kennedy declared, "set forth the aim to improve

and strengthen democratic institutions theapplication of the principle of self determination within a framework of developing

democratic instituions. In the case of Peru this great cause has suffered a severe setback" Kennedy called for a return to

civilian rule. "We feel that this hemisphere can only be secure and free with democratic governments."

Such a strong statement against a ruling military junta by an American President was unprecedented. Kennedy was gambling

his administration's presitge on APRA's ability to mobilize a popular protest against the coup. When APRA's call for a national

strike failed, so did Kennedy's resolve.

It was left to David and Nelson's friend, J Peter Grace of W.R. Grace & Company, to deliver the coup de grace to the Alliance's

reforms in Peru. Leading a delegation of executives from American mining companies that were doing business in Peru, Grace

descended upon the White House like an avenging angel. His delegation told Kennedy that his actions might provoke the

Peruvian military to expropriate their properties.

Kennedy listened carefully. Men like Grace were ignored only at great peril. Within a month, accepting the junta's release

of prisoners and promise to hold elections in 1963, Kennedy resorted full diplomatic relations and all economic assistance to

the Peruvian Junta. Nine Latin American governments that had followed Kennedy's lead had to swallow their pride and do

likewise. The presitge of the presitige of the United States suffered, and the influence of Marxism among frustrated young

Peruvian intellectuals soon grew into plans for guerrilla war.

Interesting that Grace would later be a very close associate of Ronald Reagan. I COULD BE MISTAKEN HERE, but I think I have read of his

involvement -- with Casey and World Anti-Communist League-- in the 1980 Bolivian "Cocaine Coup" for which this book also gives good 1967ish

background (see that weird alligator wrestling, nazi befriending, CIA connected, drug running, Mututal of Omahas Wild Kingdom from Tampa

guy I mentioned earlier)

Kennedy's conflict with the gooder older boyer "King faction" of the CIA sent a message to US corporations with direct investment in Brazil, that JFK

might not serve their interest there either. And the book makes very clear that the 1964 Brazil coup that Mr. McCloy found so much more interesting than

his WC pro bono work, was the lynchpin to many other dictatorships in the region.

J.C. King really seemed to be a pioneer in the development of CIA ties with private companies in Latin America. These in turn could be used as team Bs and Cs as occasions demaned. Might there be ITT connections along these lines developing already in the early 1960s?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now a few paragraphs of the authors' about Mr. HeDeservedIt aka RFK [as translitterated from silence and sideswipes of the Pacifica Radio Foundation, and a Pew Mainline Friends of The Ethical Culture Society, Manhattan]:

* RFK disagreed with Johnson, Rockefeller and the CIA on their claims that local Communist party members were behind a popular revolt that

demanded the return of Juan Bosch to D.R. RFK refused to support the invasionof DR in 1965.

* "Two monts later, during a trip to Latin America [in 1965 Amy Goodman, not 1968, N.H.] Kennedy's differences with Rockefeller

on foreign affairs became more direc. Kennedy had a bitter argument with the U.S. deputy charge' d'affaires in Peru over

Standard Oil's and the embasy's equating Standard Oil's interest with those of the United States [Can we imagine such an

"out there" question from Obama today? How can we see how far right we have come if this aspect of RFK is censored, or

deemed not worthy of discussion? There is no basis of comparison thanks to Alex and Amy... but isn't that what the

Foundation Funded Left is all about?. Sorry, N. H. again] Fortunately, the explosive Standard Oil contraversy did not specifically

come up at Kennedy's press conference. "He did receive a general question on nationalization," Ambassador J. Wesley Jones

reported to Secretary of State Dean Rusk, "to which he responded that[the] question of nationalization [was] to be decided

by [the] country concerned and would be respected by us so long as there is just and fair compensation"

If Kennedy's comment gave oil executives and embassy officials the jitters, it was still only official U.S. policy and probably

the best that could be expected from the Liberal Senator. As Kennedy left Lima for Santiago, the capital of Chile, and

a tour of conditions in American-owned mines, the embassy was relieved it had been spared contraversy.

However, Kennedy had had a "frank and free" discussion that did not get reported to the ambasadork of to Rusk, until a story

appeared in the local press. He had met with Peruvian artists and intellectuals, who immediately asked about Standard Oil.

"Are yo aware of the problem of IPC [international Petroleaum Company, Standard's subsidiary in Peru}? one of the artists asked?

I understand Presidne belaunde is trying to get an acceptable solution form the company, said Kennedy.

Perhaps. But first it would be established what is understood as acceptable and then, what is more serious, that such [a]

solution will not be accepted by IPC

The Peruvians were only repeating what was commonly understood in both Lima and Washington. Johnson had already sent

to Peru fellow Texan Robert B. Anderson, Eisenhower's former deupty defense secretary and treasury secretary and a man

who knew the Rockefellers, having worked with Nelson in the Special Group and having been involved in subsequent

business ties between texas oil interests and Nelson's International Basic Economy Corporation. Anderson had called on

President Belaunde in mid-July "to explain to him that his demands [were] beyond anything an international oil company

could accept.

then David Rockefeller made a trip to Lima, arriving a week ahead of Kennedy, to persuade the Belaunde government to

back down. Belaunde's officials listened closely, for here was an unparalleled combination of financial and political power

in the flesh of one man. David was not just the brother of one of the best-known Americans in Latin America and not just

president of the Chase bank. He also represented the Council For Latin America, the enlarged offspring of the Business

Group, which now numbered over 200 companies, 85 percent of all American firms conducting business in Latin America.

Furthermore, as if to make the change of fortune since Dallas absolutely clear, David Rockefeller now had official status

in the Johnson administration as chairman of the finance committee of the US Business Advisory Council of the Alliance for

Progress (p. 538-539, Thy Will Be Done)

--------------- SKIP OVER THIS PART IF YOU HAVE ALREADY READ IT . PREVIOUSLY I PASTED IT ON MCCLOY THREAD;LARGELY BASED ON WILL BE DONE---

It occurs to me that to understand the significace of this last comment it might be necessary to recall this previous description of the

transition from JFK to LBJ as it was perceived in Latin America

Brazil 1964 - Brazil is the largest nation in the South American continent, and one of the world's richest in terms of natural resources. In 1961 a young idealistic nationalist named João Goulart became president and he began promoting policies of land reform, nationalization, and industrialization to try to make the most of his nation's enormous potential.

During Goulart's presidency he became good friends with President Kennedy who began the Alliance for Progress foreign aid initiatives involving Brazil in 1961. These initiatives were made on a government-to-government basis, sidestepping the World Bank and the IMF and the profit-driven initiatives of Wall Street, and they were widely criticized by Establishment spokesmen such as Nelson and David Rockefeller, and in Wall Street mouthpieces such as the Wall Street Journal and Fortune magazine, and in McCloy's CFR journal Foreign Affairs.

Gerard Colby in his book Thy Will Be Done offers David Rockefeller's perspective on how the United States should approach foreign economic development, and the quote within it is from Rockefeller's paper, "A Reappraisal of the Alliance for Progress," written in February of 1963,

The Cold War doctrine of counterinsurgency had brought U.S. policy full circle, blurring means and ends: Development was necessary for order, and order was necessary for development.

David Rockefeller had explained the first half of this thesis from an exclusively corporate interpretation of development in 1963. He had called upon President Kennedy to shift foreign economic aid away from government-to-government aid. Such aid allowed governments in underdeveloped countries to fund publicly owned enterprises that competed with privately owned (often American controlled) companies. Local government aid, in turn, encouraged political independence from Washington and greater national sovereignty - including nationalization of American holdings.

David wanted Kennedy to proclaim a shift in foreign-aid policy toward private entrepreneurs, both American and allied local investors, on the grounds that private enterprise per se was the basis of freedom:

"The first requirement is that the governments - and, as far as possible, the people - of Latin America know that the U.S. has changed its policy, so as to put primary stress on improvement in the general business climate as a prerequisite for social development and reform."

But David went beyond the classical liberal argument of the market basis for individual liberty. He extended it to suggest that U.S. policy should not merely prefer private enterprise, but should oppose public enterprise and its creation out of private corporations, no matter what the public's grievances or the corporation's crimes. David wanted a general U.S. policy that discouraged all nationalizations...

David and his corporate allies feared "possible changes in the rules of the game." To soothe corporate jitters in corporate boardrooms and securities exchanges, the "obstacles" that a developing nation usually erected to protect its infant industries, small farms, and working-class' buying power had to be done away with... Multinational corporate ideology had not yet advanced to the point of asserting that these protections were "outmoded" in their global marketplace, but this would be the next step.

JFK had very different ideas from David Rockefeller on how developing nations could realize their potential, and JFK's ideas were viewed much more favorably by those nations than were the Establishment's clever ideas promoting neo-imperialism. Perhaps that partially explains the anguish felt in Brazil, and worldwide, at the death of JFK, as Colby describes,

News of John Kennedy's murder sent a shudder through Brazil. Then came grief such as had not been shown for the death of any foreign leader since President Franklin D. Roosevelt. As then, Brazilians sensed that the world had taken a dramatic turn. A shroud had been hung over the face of the future, making the loss of Kennedy so unexpectedly personal. In Rio de Janeiro, rivers of grief swept through the streets as lines of people converged to mourn at the U.S. Embassy

Ambassador Lincoln Gordon was startled by the emotional crowds and what they could mean for President Lyndon B. Johnson in Latin America. "The experience we had that Friday afternoon and evening and the following weekend, I suppose, was repeated all over the world," he later recalled. "But in Rio it was a most dramatic thing. We opened a book at the chancery and another one at our residence, and over that weekend we had a line of people stretching for three of four blocks. It was continuous, day and night, of every class of person, every type, poor, rich, middle class, most of them weeping. It was a most extraordinary outpouring of emotion. So as a reaction to that, there would inevitably be some doubts about Kennedy's successor."

There was no doubt in Washington's higher circles, however, about Lyndon Johnson. The former Senate majority leader was no maverick like Kennedy. He was the classic insider among Washington's power brokers.

_

After Kennedy's death in November of 1963 major changes occurred in the Alliance for Progress program, changes which, as noted by Gibson, were received very favorably by David Rockefeller, as he made clear in a 1966 article he wrote for Foreign Affairs. Major changes also took place in the Brazilian government, when President Goulart was removed from power in a CIA-backed right-wing military coup in March of 1964. Brazil then endured two decades of death squads and dictatorships before any meaningful form of democracy was allowed to surface again.

The Establishment's interest in Brazil came chiefly through the Brazilian holdings of the Rockefeller family, which by the 1960's were extensive and diverse, from oil and mining, to electricity and communications, to cattle ranching, agriculture, and of course banking and investment. Much of them were managed under the umbrella of Nelson's massive multinational corporation, the International Basic Economy Corporation (IBEC), which also included holdings throughout the rest of South and Central America, in Southeast Asia, and in Africa as well. Rockefeller's influence in South America, and the influence of the IBEC, is documented extensively in the previously mentioned book written by Gerard Colby in 1995, Thy Will Be Done - The Conquest of the Amazon: Nelson Rockefeller and Evangelism in the Age of Oil. As the title infers, the Rockefeller's designs on the resources of South America were cleverly cloaked by their support for Protestant evangelism, especially through the missionary work of William Cameron Townsend and Wycliffe Bible Translators. In the United States Billy Graham was the most prominent name among a host of evangelicals that have always had strong financial backing from the secular Rockefellers. This may help explain how American corporate initiatives against Third World nationalism came to be falsely portrayed by Big Christianity in America as "Christian" initiatives fighting against "Communism."

Even before João Goulart became president of Brazil the CIA had his eye on him. Colby writes,

A stocky, handsome man with a large popular following, Goulart viewed himself as [former Brazilian president] Getulio Vargas's spiritual successor in the struggle to rid Brazil of foreign domination. For that reason alone, he made Washington nervous at every step in his rise to power. As Vargas's minister of labor, he had built himself a base among Brazil's growing, restless working class. In gestures all too reminiscent of Argentina's Juan Peron, he found every opportunity to deliver rousing, populist speeches to the masses.

Colby describes how in 1963 Goulart presided over the nationalizing of a subsidiary of American-owned International Telephone and Telegraph (ITT). The president of ITT then began to furiously lobby congress for an amendment to Kennedy's 1962 foreign-aid bill that would immediately cancel all aid to any country that nationalized, repudiated a contract, or specially taxed or regulated any American company. According to Colby,

Such a Big Stick approach appalled President Kennedy, who worried that it would further enflame Third World nationalism, appear to corroborate Soviet propaganda about "U.S. imperialism," and force the United States to take the side of American companies more often than was merited.

Kennedy fought the amendment to the bill, and then helped mediate a settlement between ITT and the Brazilian government. Afterwards, Goulart made an offer to buy out all American-owned utilities that were squeezing the Brazilian economy with steadily jacked up rates. Colby writes,

Kennedy endorsed the idea. He wanted to avoid Brazilian anger at rising electric bills. "It's that damned U.S. company," he thought Brazilians would say when their monthly bills arrived.

Unfortunately for Brazil, Goulart's plan was shelved because of lack of internal political support for such an ambitious move. His next action was to order his finance minister to apply a limit on the amount of net profits that foreign companies would be allowed to take out of the country, and then he asserted control over foreign aid. Up to that point much of it was being poured into favored states within Brazil, but Goulart mandated that it must first be channeled through the federal government. These were all policies aimed at improving the general welfare of the Brazilian people, but they conflicted with the profit motives of the American Establishment.

Goulart also turned his attention to the United States' largest producer of iron ore, the M.A. Hanna Mining Company, that had a major presence in Brazil. Hanna was the main iron ore supplier of National Steel, which in turn supplied 40% of Chrysler Corporation's steel, and all three companies were highly invested in by the Rockefeller family. In 1962 President Goulart issued an expropriation decree against Hanna's iron ore concession. It was appealed in the Brazilian courts by Hanna's CEO George Humphrey, but by early 1964 it looked as if Goulart's decree would be passed. JFK was out of the way, and the time had come for the Establishment to act.

No time was wasted because Humphrey was a firm Establishment insider. He had previously been Eisenhower's Treasury secretary, and his company's law firm was Milbank and Tweed, the law firm of John J. McCloy. "The Chairman" then took control of the Goulart situation during the very same time that he was beginning his work with the Warren Commission on the JFK assassination. McCloy would work to cover up the successful American coup at the same time as he planned for a Brazilian coup, and as these two tasks began President Lyndon Johnson awarded him the Freedom Medal at a White House ceremony in the State Dining Room.

Biographer Kai Bird describes how McCloy took command,

McCloy quickly set about educating himself on the situation by seeing all the appropriate officials at the State Department, the World Bank, the IMF, and the CIA. As it happened, one of the men he had worked with in Germany after the war, Lincoln Gordon, was now the U.S. Ambassador to Brazil. Gordon was back in Washington temporarily that week and gave McCloy his own highly pessimistic assessment of the situation...

In preparation for the worst, McCloy set up a channel of communication between the CIA and Hanna's man, Buford [CEO Humphrey's assistant]. Thereafter, whenever Buford returned from one of his frequent trips to Rio de Janeiro, he would drive out to the CIA's headquarters in Langley, Virginia, for a debriefing. According to Buford, McCloy also arranged for him to meet periodically with the CIA station chief in Rio. "Through this fellow," recalled Buford, "we had many, many meetings with the military people who were opposing Goulart behind the scenes."

Bird relates that on February 28 McCloy flew out to Rio de Janeiro to meet with President Goulart. In his pocket he had two proposals to settle the dispute between Hanna Mining and the Brazilian government. Goulart readily agreed to both of the proposals and promised to set up a meeting between Hanna officials and government representatives to work out the deal. Goulart felt greatly relieved at this turn of events, but he had no way of knowing that the proposals were never meant to be lived up to. Several days later Goulart pressed on with his reforming agenda, announcing at a rally his plans to nationalize "all private oil refineries and some landholdings."

At the same time the powerful anti-Goulart opposition shifted into a higher gear. Demonstrations for and against Goulart took place throughout Brazil and tensions escalated. Bird writes,

Hanna officials were now very worried. Back in their Cleveland headquarters, Humphrey and Buford considered sending McCloy down to Rio once again. But McCloy knew from his contacts in the intelligence community that the time for deal making was over. On March 27, 1964, Colonel Walters cabled Washington that General Castello Branco had "finally accepted [the] leadership" of the anti-Goulart "plotters." Three days later, he told Ambassador Gordon that a military coup was "imminent." The following morning, Washington's contingency plan for a Brazilian coup, code-named Operation Brother Sam, was activated as a U.S. naval-carrier task force was ordered to station itself off the Brazilian coast. Well before the coup began, the Brazilian generals were told that the U.S. Navy would provide them with both arms and scarce oil.

The Goulart regime, however, collapsed so quickly that the protracted civil war predicted by the CIA on March 31 never developed. The generals who planned and executed the coup did not need the arms or oil supplies waiting for them off the coast. Hanna Mining Company, in fact, ended up giving the generals more direct assistance than did Operation Brother Sam. The initial army revolt occurred in Minais Gerais, the state in which Hanna had its mining concession. When these troops began marching on Rio, some of them rode in Hanna trucks. In Rio itself, Jack Buford was in constant touch with the local CIA station chief, who kept him informed by phone on Goulart's movements.

Throughout President Goulart's brief term he was continually labeled a "Communist" by much of the Brazilian elite, by a large segment of its military and by the Establishment-controlled mass media in the United States. The hysteria was so effective that a year later the House of Representatives took as credible the testimony of US Southern Command General Andrew O'Meara, who stated, "The coming to power of the Castelo Branco government in Brazil last April saved that country from an immediate dictatorship which could only have been followed by Communist domination."

http://www.redmoonrising.com/AmericanBabyl...m#Brazil%201964

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now back to RFK in Brazil in 1965:

But whatever Rockefeller gained for Standard Oil was undermined when Senator Kennedy arrived. Kennedy's comments about

Standard Oil's recalcitrance were published in the Peruvian Press.

"So then, why don't you act?" Kennedy reportedly asked the Peruvians.

"Because pressures exist which involve the power of IPC and the problems of credit badly needed by the country," one of them

repleid. "In some way, if you will pardon the expression, it could be said to blackmail"

Kennedy stayed on the offensive, challenging the Peruvians to act for themselves:

In the conversation I had with the students at the Perucian-American Cultural Institute

I heard many complaints and criticisms, but not once was I told about what they thought

or what they supposed should be done in this or that problem. I think that the action is up

to you people. President Kennedy had to act against some large American firms; Argentina

has cancelled its oil contracts; years ago Mexico nationalized its oil, and what happened?

It is up to you not to get overwhelmed and to act according to your interests and according

with what you consider is more convenient. And nothing can happen, as nothing happened

before

The authors do not make RFK seem like the leftist that he wasn't. Yet they also capture his own senes of how different the Latin American

policy of the 'the Kennedy's' was from the direct investment, more clearly unilateral policies of LBJ and Nelson Rockefeller: Did RFK's

perception of these differeneces reflect a real division within the US ruling class or a fatal naivity on the part of an indoctrinated Cold Warrior

who was, nevertheless, subject to change:

Kennedy's belief that in the United States democratic government already prevailed over privilege was unshaken. "Do you

really believe," he asked, "that the enterprises and companies have so large an influence here and so much political

influence over the US Government? During President Kennedy's administration, businessmen did not enter the White House.

My trip to Latin America was certainly not looked on with favor by the State Department. But from what you people tell me,

I can say again that it is up to you to change things ifthey are as you said"

"And how about the Marines? asked one man, referring to the recent Dominican intervention.

"Surely, you are not aware, Mr. Kennedy," said another, "that not long ago Mr. Rockefeller said in Lima that future financing is

conditional to the favorable solution to the problems of the IPC and the International Telephone Company

Kennedy's face tensed. "And what importance do you give to this kind of threat? We Kennedy's, we eat Rockefellers for Breakfast"

The US Embassy in Lima asked Kennedy "for a statement clarifying" his view. Kennedy refused either to denounce the Peruvians of to

retract his statements. "Someone at the gathering leaked the incident to the press," Kennedy aide Richard Goodwin later told Rockefeller

family historians Peter Colier and David Horowitz, "and it got around. When we stopped in Argentina, a reporter rushed up to Bobby

and said [in a mistranslation that nonetheless managed to capture a sense of the way Latin American policy was made in the

Johnson Administration] "Senator, is it true that you have breakfast with Rockefeller every morning?"

The Johnson White House was not amused. "The stories have him in effect saying:'Go ahead and nationalize. Others (Argentina,

Brazil, Mexico) have done this. In the end, things work out," William Bowdler reported to National Security Adivsor McGeorge

Bundy. "I don't see that there is anything that we can do about the episode, Bowdler, concluded.

Lyndon Johnson disagreed. Something could be done.

Kennedy's views on the Dominican Republic and on Peru won him no praise in Room 5600 [ Nelson's bunker in Rockefeller Center].

Neither did his damning of Apartheid in South Africa as an evil comparable to "discriminatin in New York, serfdom in Peru, starvation

in India mass slaughter in Indonesia, and the Jailing of intellectuals in the Soviet Union" David Rockefeller was the most active American

banker promoting financial ties with South Africa (Thy Will Be Done, pp. 540-541)

Amy Goodman might imply that RFK was the same as LBJ. Rockefeller knew they wern't, and funds her, into eternity.

Edited by Nathaniel Heidenheimer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good lord, it's a thousand pages!

Should take you about a day and a half to read it with comprehension, Myra. Glad to see you posting occasionally. Hope you consider doing so a little more frequently.

My copy was ex-libris. Sad that so many important works are disappearing from library shelves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good lord, it's a thousand pages!

Should take you about a day and a half to read it with comprehension, Myra. Glad to see you posting occasionally. Hope you consider doing so a little more frequently.

My copy was ex-libris. Sad that so many important works are disappearing from library shelves.

Yeah I finished the book today.

... Ok, not really.

But I appreciate the vote of confidence Mike.

Maybe your ex library book was available because they got a new copy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, Rocky really was involved up to his neck, not only in South America, the Rocky Commission, and in oil generally, but specifically with his company's ownership of Magnolia Oil Company, which has a few very tight connections to the JFK assassination.

Jim Braden's partner Victor Perria (sp?) married a rich Dallas widow, a Mrs. Little, whose husband was one of the top founders or partners in Magnolia.

Braden then moved in with them in their Turtle Creek home, not far from Walker's place and the Egyptian Lounge.

It was pretty obvious they were con men bilking the rich widow, and Dallas Sheriff Bill Decker had Braden picked up and run out of town as a vagrant with no visible means of support. The resulting press gave Braden and VP the nickname the "Honeymooners."

Decker had probably forgot about that incident on 11/22/63 when Braden was picked up as a suspicous person leaving the Dal Tex building by Dallas deputy sheriff Lummie Lewis.

LHO, the patsy and fall guy, was set up at the TSBD by Mrs. Paine, who met the Oswalds in February 1963 at a party at the home of some Magnolia Oil employees, including Volkmar Schmidt, who got his job with Magnolia in Germany, and Everett Glover, who met Michael Paine at a Unitarian Church folk dancing session.

Other Magnolia Oil people were at the party, including Betty McDonald (not the stripper), and the son of a Radio Free Europe executive.

At some point after Mr. Little was associated with Magnolia, the company was purchased by Rockefeller's Oil company and merged with Exon Mobil, now the most profitable company in the world.

It would be interesting to know if Rocky himself had any personal dealings with the Magnolia branch of his company, which I believe, was based in North Jersey.

Is there any mention of Magnolia Oil in the book?

Thanks,

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

Braden's partner was Victor Emanuel Pereira. Gertrude Joyce was the widow of the Magnolia Oil president that he conned some $40,000 from.

Braden was engaged to Joyce's daughter when Decker ran him out of town.

Braden and Pereira below.

James

Thanks James,

My source on "Mrs. Little" is Peter Noyes' Legacy of Doubt, I beleive.

I'm sure you're info is more accurate than his.

But on reading this:

http://supreme.justia.com/us/347/1/case.html

It appears that Mrs. Joyce may not be the Magnolia widow who lived on Turtle Creek, and that Braden and Victor Pereira had done this scheme more than once.

Is Pereira still alive?

BK

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the Ford/FBI/Warren Commission thread:

..... I am probably incorrect in resurrecting a distant and fading memory that says that Ford was a Rockefeller gofer...

From Thy Will Be Done:

Although Gerald Ford had testified during his own confirmation hearings for the vice presidency in late 1973 that he would not run for reelection if he succeeded Nixon, by 1975, Ford's desire

for election in his own right had grown. Nelson watched this development with concern. He had expected to succeed Ford; now he was not sure Ford would not bend to pressure from the right

wing of the Republican party and seek a running mate more to their liking. Nelson knew that California's Ronald Reagan was busy building a challenge in the Bible Belt. However, he underestimated Reagan,

considering him a "lightweight." Ford's political advisors took Reagan more seriously.

The authors go on to describe how Ford, with the help of Rumsfeld and Cheney, got Rockefeller to withdraw his name from the ticket in 1976. Shortly after, Ford purged Rockefeller power from the cabinet,

firing Kissinger, Schlesinger, "and weakened another Rockefeller like-thinker, George Bush, by appointing him head of the scandal-ridden spy agency." According to the authors:

Nelson would always claim that his removal from the 1976 Republican ticket was a deliberate effort to sabotage Gerald Ford's presidency. He saw Rumsfeld leading the Nixon wing and allying it with the Far Right,

backing Reagan to stop the Rockefeller wing of the party and bring down Ford in the process. Rumsfeld's move in the Pentagon to take Schlesinger's place as defense secretary would not remove his influence on

the White House. Rumsfeld kept in daily touch with his his successor as White House chief of staff, Dick Cheney.

Rockefeller had met with Ford and offered to become Ford's chief of staff and run the cabinet while Ford campaigned. Ford declined the offer. Rockefeller became exiled from politics and turned to setting his financial empire in order.

A few short years later, he was dead.

(To BK: Magnolia Oil was not mentioned in the index)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...