What is the source of his remarkable authority?

Professor Kissinger's public commitments were in nearly every case the opposite of those expressed by Richard Nixon in his successful bid for the Presidency. But, after the rah-rah of the campaign was over, the CFR boys were brought in to run the show-and Henry Kissinger was Numero Uno.

Richard Nixon's own membership in the Council on Foreign Relations became an issue in 1962, during his contest with Joe Sh.e.l.l in California for the Republican guber natorial nomination. After that, Mr.

Nixon arranged with the Council for his name not to appear on public releases as a member. The CFR admits that it is sometimes necessary for its members to appear to have left the Council. On page 42 of the Council's 1952 Report, for example, we read: Members of the Council are sometimes obliged, by their acceptance of government posts in Washington and else where, to curtail or suspend for a time their partic.i.p.ation in Council activities.

Was Richard Nixon a secret member of the CFR throughout his Presidency? The Reece Congressional Committee discovered during its investigation of foundations that there are a number of secret members of the Council, including industrialist Cyrus Eaton and Senator William Fulbright. Our guess is that Richard Nixon was among them.

Consider, after all, Mr. Nixon's CFR foreign policy - a subject in which he has certainly earned his scarlet "A ".Disarmament without inspections, increased "- trade-on credit with the Communists, abandonment of our anti Communist allies, detente with the Soviet Union and Red China, are all programs of the CFR. Every one of these policies contradicts the Republican Party Platform of 1968.

But, once in the White House, Mr. Nixon ignored the Republican Platform on which he was elected and proceeded to follow the dictates of the Council on Foreign Relations.

What are the Rockefellers attempting to accomplish with their CFR?

For the first time we now have an actual member of the CFR who is willing to testify against the organization. He is Admiral Chester Ward, US Navy (Ret.), who as a hotshot youngish Admiral had become Judge Advocate General of the Navy. As a "man on the rise" he was invited to become a member of the -prestigious- CFR. The Establishment obviously a.s.sumed that Admiral Ward, like so many hundreds before him, would succ.u.mb to the flattery of being invited into the inner sanctums of the Establishment, and that through subtle appeals to personal ambition would quickly fall in line. The Insiders badly underestimated the toughness and stern character of Admiral Ward. He soon became a vocal opponent of the organization. And while the Rockefellers were not so gauche as to remove him from the rolls of the organio longer invited to attend the private the private luncheons and briefing sessions. The Admiral states: The Objective of the influential majority of members of CFR has not changed since its founding in 1922, more than 50 years ago. In the 50th anniversary issue of Foreign Affairs [the official quarterly publication of the CFR], the first and leading article was written by CFR member Kingman Brewster, Jr., ent.i.tled -Reflections on Our National Purpose." He did not back away from defining it: our national purpose should be to abolish our nationality. Indeed, he pulled out all the emotional stops in a hardsell for global government. He described our "Vietnam-seared generation" as being" far from America Firsters " an expression meant as a patronizing sop to our young people. in the entire CFR lexicon, there is no term of revulsion carrying a meaning so deep as -America First.- While CFR members are not robots and may disagree on many minor matters, according to the Admiral, this "l.u.s.t to surrender" our independence is common to most of them: Although, from the inside, CFR is certainly not the monolith that some members and most non members consider it, this l.u.s.t to surrender the sovereignty and independence of the United States is pervasive throughout most of the membership, and particularly in the leadership of the several divergent cliques .... If the Rockefeller family's CFR has a "pa.s.sion to surrender- US sovereignty to whom are we supposed to surrender? Admiral Ward answers that the goal is the "submergence of US sovereignty and national independence into an all-powerful one-world government." And, according to the Admiral, about 95 % of the 1,600 members of the CFR are aware that this is the real purpose of the Council-and support that goal!

For centuries, naive idealists have dreamed of a "parliament of man" that would put an end to poverty, ignorance and disease. "Modern one-worlders have added pollution and over-population to the list of evils World Government would cure. The allure of a world super state to such starry-eyed dreamers is obvious.

But what is the appeal of a World Government to such canny rationalists as the Rockefellers and others of the international super-rich? You might think that such a World Government would threaten their financial power and therefore would be the last thing on earth they would support. The answer is obvious - they expect the coming World Government to be under their control!

You will remember that John D. Rockefeller Sr. ,who proclaimed that "compet.i.tion is a sin," used every devious trick he could devise to create a national oil monopoly. His strategy was as ruthless as it was effective: Get control of your compet.i.tors, and then keep control of them.

Old John D. quickly learned that political power was essential to protect and advance his economic clout, so he went into the politics business. Once he controlled the purse strings of enough captive Congressmen, he could get them to pull strings to benefit Standard Oil and the family's other business interests. In other words. he sought national control to protect his national monopoly.

Today, however, the Rockefeller interests are not just nationwide, they are worldwide. Both Exxon and Chase Manhattan Bank do business in more than one hundred countries. The majority of these countries are found in what is euphemistically called the "third world". Many of these are former colonies of Western nations who owe their so-called independence to the Rockefellers and the CFR. Now they are ruled, for the most part, by tin-pot dictators who have no more understanding of the realities of economics than Elizabeth Taylor does of the sanct.i.ty of a convent. And there is always the chance that one of these new "people's republics- will forget who owns them.

An even greater danger to the internationalists of the CFR, however, is the fear that enough Americans will finally understand what they are doing and, in the age-old tradition of an angry electorate, "throw the rascals out" Faced with the possibility that any one of a hundred mininations might suddenly thumb its nose at you; or even worse, that the citizens of your own country might get wise to the game plan and give you the heave-ho, what do you do?

The answer has been obvious to the Rockefellers for more than fifty years: you create a one-world government which you will control, and you have that government rule all the others.

This has been the game plan for at least the past 54 years-ever since Daddy Oilbucks himself donated money to build the League of Nations headquarters in Geneva. Unfortunately for his own ambitions, there were still enough un-bought Senators and un-controlled newspapers in the United States to thwart his plans. His countrymen escaped the noose he and his comrades had prepared for them by refusing to join the budding World Government.

But the conspirators learned their lesson and did not make the same mistake again. They went to work at once, first, by creating the Council on Foreign Relations, and then by using it to soften up the US for the next World Government they would propose.*

*For more details about this whole plot, read None Dare Call It Conspiracy by this author.

The Insiders cloak their grasp for world political power in many idealistic cloches, and hide their true intentions behind a number of code phrases.

The current favorite seems to be "New World Order.-"

The expression is as old as the diabolical scheme of a secret society of the Eighteenth Century called the Illuminati, for a novus ordo seclorum -in fact, "new world order" is merely a translation of the Illuminati's avowed goal. (see ONE US DOLLAR BILL ) By 1945, the Rockefellers were ready. Grandson Nelson was one of the 74 CFR members at the founding meeting of the United Nations in San Francisco. Later, Nelson and his brothers donated the land for the United Nations complex along the East River in New York-possibly because they did not want the new headquarters of their World Government to be more than a short taxi-ride away from their penthouses.

Such a "New World Order" most emphatically does not mean an impotent debating society to the CFR.

lt means an international regime that controls the world's armies, the world's weapons, its courts, its tax collectors, its schools, its governments and everything else. In succeeding chapters we will see exactly how the Rockefellers intend to nurture their embryonic structure until it has all of these powers, and more. For the moment, take our word that the " New World Order" these international wheeler-dealers have in mind would not be a republic, bound down by the chains of a const.i.tution (as Jefferson phrased it), working to increase freedom for all of us, where the rights of every citizen are protected from a tyrannical Big Brother.

The "New World Order" the Rockefellers are planning will be a world dictatorship. Conservatives will call it Socialism or Communism, Liberals will call it Fascism. The label makes little difference; it will be the Gulag Archipelago on a worldwide basis.

Of course, proponents of such a World Government disguise their intentions behind all kinds of double talk. For example. Senator Alan Cranston of California (for many years the president of the Rockefeller- interlocked United World Federalists), defended his proposal for a world super-state with these words: (World Government) Proposition 64 does not propose that we give up a shred of sovereignty. Plainly it proposes a means by which we can gain the ability to exercise our presently impotent sovereignty in the vital area of war prevention. It proposes that we create a limited world government and deposit our sovereignty there ....

Let us repeat that. Senator Cranston says we won't give up a shred of sovereignty- if we -create a limited world government and deposit our sovereignty there.- Lewis Carroll couldn't have said it better. George Orwell didn't even try; he called it "newspeak."

But while Senator Cranston and many of his colleagues play the string section in the orchestration for World Government, other CFR members trumpet other parts in this carefully rehea.r.s.ed symphony.

Nelson Rockefeller, for example, as an -altruistic millionaire," sounds the melody line for international taxation. In his book The Future of Federalism, first published in 1962 and then reprinted when he was nominated for the Vice Presidency, Nelson stated:"...I think the answer is some free-world super- national political being with the power to tax. . . " Ask yourself this question: Does Nelson Rockefeller want to tax his wealth to aid the world's poor? If so, why doesn't he eliminate those expensive bureaucratic middlemen, and simply give his money to the downtrodden ma.s.ses now ? Is it possible that he is trying to become richer-wads and wads richer, as the family representative put it - by dividing your wealth with himself?

During the confirmation hearings over his nomination as the nation's second unelected Vice President, a few courageous Congressmen, such as Representive John Ashbrook and Senator Jesse Helms, asked how it would be possible for Nelson to uphold an oath to protect and defend the Const.i.tution of the United States when he was already on record as supporting a World Government that would sc.r.a.p our national charter. Such inquiries, however, were ignored by both Rockefeller and the national media. You would think that the issue of the survival of the United States might rate a line or two in your local Daily Bugle. But instead, all of the s.p.a.ce was given to a planned farce about whether or not Rocky financed a derogatory book about a political opponent. That's like launching a newspaper crusade accusing jack the Ripper of throwing gum wrappers in the gutter and ignoring his penchant for slitting throats!

In The Future of Federalism, n.o.ble Nels proclaimed: No nation today can defend its freedom, or fulfill the needs and aspirations of its own people, from within its own borders or through its own resources alone .... And so the nation-state, standing alone, threatens, in many ways, to seem as anachronistic as the Greek city-states eventually became in ancient times.

Get it? The man who could not be elected to the White House, but managed to arrange an entrance there anyway, says that a free and independent United States is now anachronistic.

Webster's defines "anachronism" as something from a former age that is incongruous in the present.

Every effective World Government proponent learns early in the game some rhetorical tricks, such as calling black white. Nelson Rockefeller is no exception. In the same book, he suggests: The federal idea, which our Founding Fathers applied in their historic act of political creation in the eighteenth century, can be applied in this twentieth century in the larger context of the world of free nations - if we will but match our forefathers in courage and vision.

Even Nelson Rockefeller knows that the American Revolution was a protest against exactly the sort of centralized power that he himself now advocates. The British Empire was the World Government of its day. Our forefathers did not want to be inter-dependent; they wanted to be independent. And they were willing to pay the price for their independence in the same coin that free men must always be willing to pay-blood and gold.

During the early 1950's, Nelson Rockefeller encouraged the wide distribution of a photograph of himself. It showed him holding a globe in his hands, and staring pensively into the future. Many people are convinced that the symbolism involved was not accidental.

Chapter Six

The Rockefeller Mediacracy

The Rockefellers, as we have seen, have never been ones to leave public opinion to chance. That is why they have invested their charitable monies so judiciously in education and religion. It would be naive to think that the family would not exert every possible subtle and unsubtle influence over the nation's ma.s.s media.

In Chapter One we described how the Rockefellers use leverage to maximize the power of their investments in industry and finance. They follow the same principle when they buy influence over education. They do not pour money into local school board races; they put their bucks into the schools that train the teachers and they finance the writing of textbooks. Now that every public school is at the mercy of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (which Nelson Rockefeller created and ran under Eisenhower), the family couldn't care less who controls the local school board. In the field of religion, the money goes to key seminaries where ministers are trained and to the National Council of Churches which claims to represent forty million Protestants.

The Rockefellers grab, with all the gusto they've got, at the apex of whatever instrumentality they wish to control. The influence of the Council on Foreign Relations in the federal government is concentrated in the Executive Branch. That is where the action is-at the top. And so it is with Rockefeller control of the media. They are not interested in controlling the Burnt Mattress Weekly Blat; they go for the leaders in the field. In the old days, John D. sent his agents out to bribe editors and to buy up small papers, but that is very inefficient and antiquated in the electronic age. Now, the local papers are dependent on wire services and syndicated columnists to fill their news and editorial pages.

The Rockefellers have made sure that the real movers and shakers in the field of ma.s.s communications have been initiated into their CFR lodge. Admiral Ward informs us: Equally important is CFR's influence in the ma.s.s media. Out of its 1,551 members, 60 were listed in official CFR reports as engaged in "journalism." An additional 61 were listed in -communications management," a highly descriptive t.i.tle, because CFR members do indeed"manage" ma.s.s communications media, especially the influential segments. They control or own major newspapers, magazines, radio and television networks, and they control the most powerful companies in the book publishing business.

Few would argue the fact that the New York Times is the most influential newspaper in the U.S. "A significance of the Times," Times man James Reston has written, "is its multiplier effect. What appears in the Times automatically appears later in other places.

Concerning this multiplier effect, Alice Widener, columnist for Barron's,notes: ''Equally important is CFR's influence in the ma.s.s media .... They control or own major newspapers, magazines, radio and television networks ...''

-Admiral Chester Ward (CFR and USN, Retired)It is a fact that most editors and newsmen on the staffs of Life, Look, Time, Newsweek, etc., and most editors, reporters, and commentators at NBC, CBS, and ABC take their news and editorial cues from the New York Times. . Technically, it is a great newspaper; but it reports much of the news in conformity with its editorial policies.

The late Arthur Hays Sulzberger, chairman of the board of the New York Times, was a member of the CFR, and today there are at least 11 people in high positions with e Times who are CFR members.

Sulzberger's son-in-law Orvil E. Dryfoos (CFR) succeeded him as publisher. The current publisher is Arthur Ochs " Punch" Sulzberger (CFR).

Other CFR members at the Times are: Harding Bancroft, Executive Vice President. James Reston, Vice President and columnist; A. M. Rosenthal, managing editor; Seymour Topping, a.s.sistant managing editor; Max Frankel, Sunday editor; Harrison Salisbury, a.s.sociate editor; C. L. Sulzberger, columnist; and David Halberstam, columnist.

The Times is infamous for it's anti-anti-Communism and its support of socialist-fascist legislation. Its treatment of Stalin as a kindly liberal running a Russian branch of the ACLU should have made it a laughing stock, but didn't. Neither did the Times 'Herbert L. Matthews' (CFR) treatment of "Dr. Castro"

as the George Washington of Cuba. Matthews swore repeatedly that Castro was anything but a Communist. Later, jokers commented that Castro could honestly say, "Igot my job through the New York Times."

Needless to say, the support Nelson Rockefeller has received in his political career from the normally Democrat Times has been nearly total.

Running a close second to the New York Times in the prestige race is the Washington Post. Every Senator and Congressman, regardless of his party or political persuasion, has the Post on his desk each morning. Like the Times, the Post is read by the people who count when it comes to running the country.

The Post's owner and publisher Katharine Graham is a member of the CFR, as are other top editors and management personnel. For years the Post has been referred to as "the uptown Daily Worker. "The only time the Post has ever opposed "big government- is when it has been used to investigate Communism.

When this has happened, the people at the Post frantically start waving the Const.i.tution and babbling about "freedom of speech " - something they regularly suppress when it involves opposition to fascism- socialism or the Rockefellers.

One of the most influential members of the Post's staff is the incredibly talented truth-twister, cartoonist Herbert L. Block. Herblock's cartoons are syndicated daily in hundreds of papers. (And for every person, who reads the editorial page, there are probably a hundred who look at the lead cartoon.) The Los Angeles Times is the West Coast's most important newspaper. Formerly staunchly conservative, the paper made a sharp Left turn fifteen if teen years ago and while it still retains its COP standing for protective coloring, it has become an organ for Establishment socialism. The Times is connected to the Rockefellers' CFR through board chairman Franklin Murphy and the fact that it owns a wire service in conjunction with the ultra-Liberal Washington Post. In addition, the Los Angeles Times owns the important Newsday on Long Island.

Other major newspapers with CFR interlocks are: the Arkansas Gazette, Des Moines Register & Tribune, Gannett Co.(publisher of newspapers in 40 cities from New York to Hawaii), The Houston Post, Minneapolis Star & Tribune, The Denver Post and Louisville Courier.*Equally important has been CFR influence within the wire services. For many years Arthur Sulzberger was a director of the a.s.sociated Press while today Katharine Graham and John Cowles, Jr. are on the board. In addition, the New York Times has its own news service as does the Washington Post-Los Angeles Times. Every daily newspaper in the country uses one or more of these wire services for news and editorials.

Today it might be argued that television has superseded the newspaper as the primary creator of public opinion. Naturally, the Rockefellers have reached for control of the tube. William S. Paley, chairman of the board of CBS, is a CFR member as well as a trustee of the Ford Foundation. CBS has over 200 TV and 255 radio affiliates nationwide. CBS's president, Arthur Taylor, and Michael O'Neill of CBS publications are both members of the CFR. The former president of CBS was Dr. Frank Stanton (CFR), who is also a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation and Carnegie Inst.i.tution. CBS directors who are CFR members include Roswell Gilpatrick, Courtney Brown, Henry Schacht, and William Burden. CBS (sometimes referred to as the Conspiracy Brainwashing System) newsmen who are CFR members include Charles C. Collingwood , Richard C. Hottelet, Marvin Kalb, Larry LeSueur, and Daniel Schorr.*

* There are more than thirty Committees on Foreign Relations in major US cities which the CFR says are -affiliated- with the Council. Members of these local CFR Committees staff scores of other newspapers and radio television stations.

The National Broadcasting Company is a subsidiary of the Radio Corporation of America. Until his recent retirement, the head of RCA-NBC was long-time CFR member David Sarnoff. Like CBS's Paley, Sarnoff was born in Russia. Under him, RCA was a major financial contributor to the CFR. Sarnoff spent much of his time promoting -foreign aid." Succeeding David Sarnoff at RCA is son Robert, a director of the Advertising Council, a spinoff of the CFR.

NBC newsmen John Chancellor and Irving R. Levine are CFR members, as are directors Thornton Bradshaw and John Petty.

The American Broadcasting Company is the Tag-Along Tooloo of the Big Three networks. It has 153 TV stations and specializes in escapist entertainment. It generally leaves the -doc.u.mentary- propaganda to the Big Two. Its news audience amounts to only 7 million, while the other networks divide up the remaining 35 million news watchers. It does not have the CFR ties that CBS- and NBC do, but Chase Manhattan Bank controls 6.7 % of its stock-enough to give it a controlling interest. Chase, through its trust department, controls 14 % of CBS and 4.5 % of RCA. Instead of three competing television networks called NBC, CBS, and ABC, what we really have is the Rockefeller Broadcasting Company, the Rockefeller Broadcasting System, and the Rockefeller Broadcasting Consortium.

* Certainly no one was very surprised that CBS carried an almost unprecedented 2-hour propaganda show on "The Rockefellers- during prime viewing time on Friday, December 28, 1973. CBS used its star, Walter Cronkite, to narrate this spectacle, which was so sugary it must have sent thousands of diabetics scrambling for their insulin. Cronkite closed by saying that if any family had to have as much money and power as the Rockefellers, it was a good thing it was the Rockefellers! For a political candidate to buy that kind of television time would cost an astronomical sum. But Rocky has-friends. It didn't cost him a nickel.

Although the advent of television has somewhat diminished the influence of the slick magazines upon ma.s.s opinion, their importance is still significant. Until its demise (caused by advertisers switching to television), the nation's second-leading magazine in circulation was Look, with 7,750,000 copies distributed per issue. Look was owned by Cowles Communications, headed by Gardner and John Cowles. Both Cowles brothers are members of the Council on Foreign Relations.

The Cowles publishing empire encompa.s.ses Harper's a list of trade journals, a string of newspapers and television stations, and Harper & Row. Managing the operation for the Cowles family is Ca.s.s Canfield of the CFR and World Federalists. John Cowles is married to Canfield's daughter.

John Cowles runs the Minneapolis Tribune and Des Moines Register. He is a trustee of the Rockefeller- interlocked Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and of the Ford Foundation, and he is a member of the National Policy Board of American a.s.sembly - a front created by Averell Harriman, the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, and the CFR to run propaganda seminars for leaders in American business, labor, communications, and the academy. He is on the Advisory Council of the US Committee for the US and the ultra-Leftist National Committee for an Effective Congress, which operates a "be kind to the Communists- lobby in Washington.

According to the American Legion's Firing Line of August 15, 1954, John Cowles joined twenty-three others signing telegrams to US Senators -asking support of measures which would stifle all Congressional investigations of Communism."Little wonder, Brother John is very serious about merging America into a World Government with the Communists. The following is from a U.P.I. dispatch of June 7, 1959: John Cowles, publisher of " The Minneapolis Star and Tribune " said today that the traditional American concept of national sovereignty is obsolete...

Gardner Cowles, chairman of the board of Cowles Communications, works hard to keep up with the Leftist activities of his brother. Besides being a member of the CFR, he is also a member of the Atlantic Union Committee.

Running Look magazine for the Cowles boys was William Atwood (CFR), who once wrote that we could "thank our lucky stars that Castro is not a Communist.- What Americans can thank their lucky stars about is that Look, which published more smears against anti Communists than any other publication outside the official Communist Press, went broke.

After nearly four decades as a leading opinion maker in America, Life bit the same dust as Look and for the same reason, despite a whopping circulation of 8.5 million. Life's corporate brother, Time, the leading news weekly, with a circulation of 4.2 million (as compared to Newsweek's 2.5 million and U. S.

News & World Report's 1.8) is healthy, as are Time Inc.'s Sports Ill.u.s.trated and Fortune.

The Time corporation recently bought its first newspaper, the Newark Evening News, for $34 million, and later purchased thirty-two more in the Chicago suburbs. It also owns Little, Brown & Company, an Establishment book publisher; 300,000 shares of Metro-Goldwyn Mayer; 600,000 acres of timberland; and, is part owner of media in South America, West Germany, Hong Kong, and Australia. In addition to all this, Time Inc. owns some thirty television stations in America, giving this mammoth conglomerate a voice in every form of ma.s.s media newspapers, magazines, movies, television, book publishing, and even teaching machines.

The builder of this empire was the late Henry Luce (CFR), whose impact on American thinking has been enormous. As Theodore White (CFR) has noted, " He revolutionized the thinking of American readers."

Luce started his rise to publishing glory with loans from CFR Establishmentarians Thomas Lamont and Dwight Morrow (like Lamont, a J. P. Morgan partner), Harvey Firestone, E. Roland Harriman, and various members of the Harkness family (Standard Oil fortune). Their influence became especially apparent when he started his business magazine, Fortune, in the middle of the depression. As John Kobler writes in The First Tyc.o.o.n: "It is a bemusing paradox that Fortune, the magazine of business, questioned the efficiency of the free- enterprise system and even took on a faint socialist tinge. Some of its editors and contributors stood far to the left...."

Apparently that is what Luce's Rockefeller connected financial angels wanted. And, although he later seemed to oppose F.D.R., Henry Luce cheered his accomplishments: " I didn't vote for F.D.R. but it was all right with me that he won. He accomplished a lot of necessary social reform.-"

Jeanne Harmon, a former Life staff writer, tells in Such Is Life how tolerant Luce was of the Communist cell openly working at Time-Life. Mrs. Harmon relates how headlines were suddenly altered to convey meanings never intended, and how she and her fellow reporters were subjected to pressures to ignore some stories and push others. She also reveals that Whittaker Chambers was not welcomed back to Time-Life after he had testified against Alger Hiss (CFR).

Henry Luce was at one time actually considered an anti Communist. Yet he always bitterly opposed anyone like Robert Taft , General Douglas MacArthur, or Barry Goldwater, whom he thought might actually do something about Communist subversion in the United States. Luce's bogus anti-Communism was used to promote his World Government crusades. He was a member of the CFR and the Atlantic Union. Henry Luce was also a strong supporter of the United Nations, even after Alger Hiss's role in its establishment was revealed.

The Rockefeller Mediacracy In the late Fifties, Henry Luce switched from the "World Government to oppose Communism- line to the - peaceful co-existence and World Government with Communism- line, and Life went back to glorifying the Soviet Union as it had done during World War II. In 1966 , Luce took a group of 43 US businessmen behind the Iron Curtain to promote aid and trade with the enemy.

The chairman at Time Inc.is Andrew Heiskell (CFR), who is married to a New York Times heiress.

Editor-in-chief of all Time Inc. publications is Hedley Donovan, a Rhodes Scholar, former reporter for the Limousine Leftist Washington Post, and a member of the CFR. Other CFR - Establishmentarians in the Time Inc. hierarchy are vice chairman Roy La.r.s.en and directors John Gardner and Sol Linowitz.

The CFR members of Time Inc. also include James Linen, chairman of Time's executive committee; vice presidents Otto Fuerbringer and Barry Zorthian and directors Frank Pace, Jr. and Rawleigh Warner.

So closely is Time Inc. now linked with the Rockefellers that the two jointly own a helicopter.

Rapidly closing the circulation gap with Time is News week.

Newsweek is owned by the Washington Post.

Chairman of the board Frederick Beebe is a member of the CFR as was the late owner, Katharine Graham's son Phillip. Retired editor Malcolm Muir is a CFR member, as are current editors...o...b..rn Elliot and Robert Christopher, and vice president Nicholas Katzenbach. Other CFR men at Newsweek are editorial page editor Philip Geyelin, columnist Stewart Alsop, contributing editor Carl Spaatz, Atlanta Bureau chief William Anderson, and directors Katharine Graham and Kermit Lansner.

Other magazines in the CFR orbit are Business Week ,Atlantic Monthly, McCalls, World Review (formerly Sat.u.r.day Review of Literature) and Scientific American * One of the most curious publications to join the list of CFR interlocked journals is the ostensibly conservative magazine National Review. Although National Review has in the past claimed to be an opponent of the Eastern Liberal Establishment, it has never called attention to the conspiratorial activities of the Rockefeller Dynasty - and, in fact, has bitterly ridiculed anyone who suggested that there were any conspiratorial wolves mixed in with the Liberal sheep. Many well-informed conservatives were puzzled by National Review's refusal to consider the possibility that most of the liberal" mistakes - the magazine decried were actually carefully planned and deliberate acts; their bewilderment is bound to increase when they learn that editor-in-chief William F. Buckley, Jr., who has boasted of his personal friendship and warm admiration for such important Insiders as Henry Kissinger, and who enthusiastically endorsed Nelson Rockefeller for Secretary of Defense, is himself a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Book publishers with representatives on the CFR include : MacMillan, Random House, Simon & Schuster, McCraw-Hill, Harper Brothers, IBM Publishing and Printing, Xerox Corp., Yale University Press and Harper & Row. Many of these specialize in publishing textbooks.

The Book of the Month Club's chairman Axel Rosin is a member of the CFR.

Given this kind of power over the media, it is hardly surprising that the Rockefeller family generally gets the powder puff treatment from the media. The interlocking CFR web woven by the Rockefellers explains why Nelson received such unanimous hosannas from the media during his hearings for the Vice Presidency. Though a few individual reporters were mildly critical of some facets of Nelson's career, the managers of the major papers and magazines positively drooled over themselves at the prospect of Sir Nelson the Fair being a heartbeat away from the Presidency. This is not exactly the tone used on Barry Goldwater in 1964. The one-eyed press is a Rockefeller-con trolled Cyclops.

There is yet another power the Dynasty has over the ma.s.s media. The average newspaper depends on advertising for from two-thirds to three-fourths of its revenues. Ike Mc a.n.a.lly, for four decades a reporter with the New York Daily News, comments in Counter attack: The most persistent influence upon the editorial policies of metropolitan newspapers today is the large advertiser. In many instances these advertisers are department stores. Some of these make open and contemptuous demands upon the front offices of newspapers to support the left wing. Others relay "

suggestions. "

... Newspapers have surrendered unconditionally to left wing front office pressures, real and imaginary....

... They realize that if they write a story which might draw unfavorable reaction from, for instance, a department store, the city editor is apt to throw their copy back at them.... It is inevitable that with front offices swinging over, individual newsmen have more elastic principles.Here's how it works. Every one of the major department store chains " R. H. Macy & Company, Federated Department Stores, Gimbel Brothers, Sears, Roebuck & Company, J. C. Penney Company, The May Department Stores Company, Interstate Department Stores, and Allied Stores Corporation- has on its board of directors at least one officer who is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and/or a partner in the CFR interlocked international banking firms such as Kuhn, Loeb; Lazard Freres; Lehman Brothers; Dillon, Read & Company; or Coldman Sachs.

Department stores, of course, are not the only buyers of advertising s.p.a.ce. Oil companies are also biggies. So are banks. As are the myriad of corporations listed in the early part of this book as under Rockefeller family domination. Establishment adventurers will, of course, permit a paper to take a moderately conservative stand, but it is taboo to discuss the Rockefeller Establishment and its links with the International Communist Conspiracy.

With all of this membership in America's key ma.s.s media, it can hardly be an accident that few people know about the Council on Foreign Relations. If the Rockefellers wanted publicity for the CFR you can bet there would be feature spreads in Time and Newsweek plus a " 60 Minute- CBS Special narrated by Walter Cronkite. If you check The Readers Guide to Periodical Literature at your local library, you will find but a single listing on the CFR in over 50 years. And that in the relatively obscure Atlantic Monthly. A check of newspaper files shows that only two feature articles on this incredibly powerful organization have appeared, one in the Christian Science Monitor and one in the New York Times. As we said before, such anonymity can hardly be accidental.

The involvement of the Rockefellers with the media has multi-multi implications. One is that the Rockefeller gang's plans for monopolistic World Government are never, but never, discussed in the machines of ma.s.s misinformation. The media decides what the issues will be in the country. They can turn on the poverty issue or turn it off. The same holds true for population explosion, pollution, peace, detente,or whatever. We have in this country what columnist Kevin Phillips has termed a mediacracy.

The mediacracy can take a man like Ralph Nader and make him an instant folk hero. Or they can take an enemy of the Rockefellers and create the image that he is a cretin, a buffoon, a bigot, or a dangerous paranoid.