COMMUNICATIONS MEDIA
In nine chapters of this Volume, I have managed to discuss only a few of
the most powerful organizations interlocked with the Council on Foreign
Relations, to form an amazing web which is the invisible government of
the United States. There are scores of such organizations.
I have managed to name, relatively, only a few of the influential
individuals who are members of the Council on Foreign Relations, or of
affiliated agencies, and who also occupy key jobs in the executive
branch of government, including the Presidency.
I have asserted that the objective of the invisible government is to
convert America into a socialist nation and then make it a unit in a
one-world socialist system.
The managers of the combine do not admit this, of course. They are
"liberals" who say that the old "negative" kind of government we used to
have is inadequate for this century. The liberals' "positive" foreign
policy is said to be necessary for "world peace" and for meeting
"America's responsibility" in the world. Their "positive" domestic
policies are said to be necessary for the continued improvement and
progress of our "free-enterprise" system.
But the "positive" foreign policy for peace has dragged us into so many
international commitments (many of which are in direct conflict with
each other: such as, our subsidizing national independence for former
colonies of European powers, while we are also subsidizing the European
powers trying to keep the colonies) that, if we continue in our present
direction, we will inevitably find ourselves in perpetual war for
perpetual peace--or we will surrender our freedom and national
independence and become an out-voted province in a socialist one-world
system.
The liberals' "positive" domestic policies always bring the federal
government into the role of subsidizing and controlling the economic
activities of the people; and that is the known highway to the total,
tyrannical socialist state.
The Council on Foreign Relations is rapidly achieving its purpose. An
obvious reason for its success: it is reaching the American public with
its clever propaganda.
However much power the CFR combine may have inside the agencies of
government; however extensive the reach of its propaganda through
organizations designed to "educate" the public to acceptance of CFR
ideas--the CFR needs to reach the _mass_ audience of Americans who do
not belong to, or attend the meetings of, or read material distributed
by, the propaganda organizations. Council on Foreign Relations leaders
are aware of this need, and they have met it.
* * * * *
In the 1957 Annual Report of the Committee for Economic Development (a
major propaganda arm of the CFR), Gardner Cowles, then Chairman of CED's
Information Committee, did a bit of boasting about how successful CED
had been in communicating its ideas to the general public. Mr. Cowles
said:
"The value of CED's research and recommendations is directly
related to its ability to communicate them ... the organization's
role as an agency that can influence private and public economic
policies and decisions ... can be effective ... only to the extent
that CED gets its ideas across to thinking people....
"During the year [1957], the Information Division [of CED]
distributed 42 pamphlets having a total circulation of 545,585;
issued 37 press releases and texts of statements; arranged 4 press
conferences, 10 radio and television appearances, 12 speeches for
Trustees, 3 magazine articles and the publication of 3 books.... In
assessing the year, we are reminded again of the great debt we owe
the nation's editors. Their regard for the objectivity and
non-partisanship of CED's work is reflected in the exceptional
attention they give to what CED has to say. The [CED] statement,
'Toward a Realistic Farm Policy,' for example not only received
extended news treatment but was the subject of 362 editorials. The
circulation represented in the editorials alone totaled
19,336,299."
Mr. Cowles was modest. He gave only a hint of the total extent to which
the mass-communication media have become a controlled propaganda network
for the Council on Foreign Relations and its inter-connecting agencies.
I doubt that anyone really knows the full extent. My research reveals a
few of the CFR members who have (or have had) controlling, or extremely
influential, positions in the publishing and broadcasting industries. My
list of _CFR members_ in this field is far from complete; and I have not
tried to compile a list of the thousands of people who are _not_ members
of the CFR, but who _are_ members of CED, FPA, or of some other CFR
affiliate--and who also control important channels of public
communications.
Hence, the following list--of Council on Foreign Relations members whom
I know to be influential in the communications industries--is intended
to be indicative, rather than comprehensive and informative:
Herbert Agar (former Editor, _Louisville Courier-Journal_)
Hanson W. Baldwin (Military Affairs Editor, _New York Times_)
Joseph Barnes (Editor-in-Chief, Simon & Schuster, Publishers)
Elliott V. Bell (Chairman of Executive Committee, McGraw-Hill
Publishing Co.; Publisher and Editor of _Business Week_)
John Mason Brown (Editor, _Saturday Review of Literature_, drama
critic, author)
Cass Canfield (Chairman of the Editorial Board of Harper &
Brothers, Publishers)
Marquis Childs (author, syndicated columnist)
Norman Cousins (Editor-in-Chief, _Saturday Review of Literature_)
Gardner Cowles, quoted above from the 1957 CED Annual Report, and
John Cowles (They occupy controlling offices in Cowles Magazine
Company, which owns such publications as _Look_, _Minneapolis Star
and Tribune_, and _Des Moines Register and Tribune_, and which also
owns a broadcasting company.)
Mark Ethridge (Publisher, _Louisville Courier-Journal_, _Louisville
Times_)
George Gallup (public opinion analyst, Gallup Poll; President,
National Municipal League)
Philip Graham (Publisher, _Washington Post and Times Herald_)
Allen Grover (Vice President of _Time_, Inc.)
Joseph C. Harsch (of _The Christian Science Monitor_)
August Heckscher (Editor, _New York Herald Tribune_)
Palmer Hoyt (Publisher, _Denver Post_)
David Lawrence (President and Editor-in-Chief, _U. S. News and
World Report_)
Hal Lehrman (Editor, _New York Post_)
Irving Levine (NBC news official and commentator)
Walter Lippmann (author, syndicated columnist)
Henry R. Luce (Publisher, _Time_, _Life_, _Fortune_, _Sports
Illustrated_)
Malcolm Muir (Chairman of the Board and Editor-in-Chief,
_Newsweek_)
William S. Paley (Chairman of the Board, Columbia Broadcasting
System)
Ogden Reid (former Chairman of the Board, _New York Herald
Tribune_)
Whitelaw Reid (former Editor-in-Chief, _New York Herald Tribune_)
James B. Reston (Editorial writer, _New York Times_)
Elmo Roper (public opinion analyst, Roper Poll)
David Sarnoff (Chairman of the Board, Radio Corporation of
America--NBC, RCA Victor, etc.)
Harry Scherman (founder and Chairman of the Board,
Book-of-the-Month Club)
William L. Shirer (author, news commentator)
Paul C. Smith (President and Editor-in-Chief, Crowell-Collier
Publishing Company)
Leland Stone (head of News Reporting for Radio Free Europe,
_Chicago Daily News_ foreign correspondent)
Robert Kenneth Straus (former research director for F. D.
Roosevelt's Council of Economic Advisers; owner and publisher of
the San Fernando, California, _Sun_; largest stockholder and member
of Board of Orange Coast Publishing Company, which publishes the
_Daily Globe-Herald_ of Costa Mesa, the _Pilot_ and other small
newspapers in California; member of group which owns and publishes
_American Heritage_ and _Horizon_ magazines; Treasurer and
Director of Industrial Publishing Company of Cleveland, which
publishes trade magazines)
Arthur Hayes Sulzberger (Chairman of the Board, _New York Times_)
C. L. Sulzberger (Editorial writer, _New York Times_)
I do not mean to imply that all of these people are controlled by the
Council on Foreign Relations, or that they uniformly support the total
program of international socialism which the Council wants. The Council
does not _own_ its members: it merely has varying degrees of influence
on each.
For example, former President Herbert Hoover, a member of the Council,
has fought eloquently against many basic policies which the Council
supports. Spruille Braden is another.
Mr. Braden formerly held several important ambassadorial posts and at
one time was Assistant Secretary of State in charge of American Republic
Affairs. In recent years, Mr. Braden has given leadership to many
patriotic organizations and efforts, such as For America and The John
Birch Society; and, in testimony before various committees of Congress,
he has given much valuable information about communist influences in the
State Department.
Mr. Braden joined the Council on Foreign Relations in the late 1920's or
early 30's, when membership in the Council was a fashionable badge of
respectability, helpful to the careers of young men in the foreign
service, in the same way that membership in expensive country clubs and
similar organizations is considered helpful to the careers of young
business executives.
Men who know Braden well say that he stayed in the Council after he came
to realize its responsibility for the policies of disaster which our
nation has followed in the postwar era--hoping to exert some
pro-American influence inside the Council.
It apparently was a frustrated hope. There is a story in well-informed
New York circles about the last time the Council on Foreign Relations
ever called on Spruille Braden to participate in an important activity.
Braden was asked to preside over a Council on Foreign Relations meeting
when the featured speaker was Herbert Matthews (member of the _New York
Times_ editorial board) whose support of communist Castro in Cuba is
notorious. It is said that the anti-communist viewpoint which Braden
tried to inject into this meeting will rather well guarantee against his
ever being asked to officiate at another CFR affair.
Generally, however, the degree of influence which the CFR exerts upon
its own members is very high indeed.
* * * * *
Apart from an occasional article or editorial which criticizes some
aspect of, or some leader in, the socialist revolution in America; and
despite much rhetoric in praise of "free enterprise" and "the American
way," such publications as _Time_, _Life_, _Fortune_, _New York Times_,
_New York Post_, _Louisville Courier-Journal_, _Washington Post and
Times Herald_, _Saturday Review of Literature_, the _Denver Post_, _The
Christian Science Monitor_ and _Look_ (I name only those, in the list
above, which I, personally, have read a great deal.) have not one time
in the past 15 years spoken editorially against any fundamentally
important aspect of the over-all governmental policies which are
dragging this nation into socialism and world government--at least, not
to my knowledge.
On the contrary, these publications heartily support those policies,
criticizing them, if at all, only about some detail--or for being too
timid, small and slow!
In contrast, David Lawrence, of _U. S. News & World Report_, publishes
fine, objective news-reporting, often featuring articles which factually
expose the costly fallacies of governmental policy. This is especially
true of _U. S. News & World Report_ in connection with domestic issues.
On matters of foreign policy, David Lawrence often goes down the line
for the internationalist policy--being convinced (as all
internationalists seem to be) that this is the only policy possible for
America in the "shrunken world" of the twentieth century.
An intelligent man like David Lawrence--who must see the endless and
unbroken chain of disasters which the internationalist foreign policy
has brought to America; and who is thoroughly familiar with the proven
record of marvelous success which our traditional policy of benign
neutrality and no-permanent-involvement enjoyed: how can he still feel
that we are nonetheless inescapably bound to follow the policy of
disaster? I wish I knew.