The ''Grassroots'' Myth: ''Liberal CIA'' Network of ''New Left'' Foundations, Media and Activist Groups - Much More Than Just George Soros

"A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA."

"I agree with you that there is nothing to prevent an individual from exerting as much influence through his work in a private foundation as he could through work in the government or in many other kinds of organization."

March 17, 1952 letter of Richard Bissell, Jr., the soon-to-be CIA deputy director of operations under Allen Dulles, to Milton Katz of the Ford Foundation and Carnegie Endowment. [ 3





The engine: key foundations

Total combined assets (2017): roughly $143 billion (apart from Google, Facebook and the Dutch Postcode Loterij). And there are at least two dozen other important ones.

Defunct media

Magazines and radio

Online news

Online news: international

Online encyclopedias and "fact-checking" sites

Activist movements

Green movement

New Religions Movement (fringe)

Psychedelics

Dedicated ISGP article: Psychedelics and elites.

Psychedelics-science overlap

Extra: Cryptocurrency

Individuals

"The next day, in Washington, the same arguments were made by other NSA [National Student Association] leaders to Sol Stern, who was writing the story [why its CIA relationship shouldn't be exposed]. They actually advanced the intriguing contention that such a disclosure would be damaging to the enlightened men of the "liberal" internationalistic wing of the CIA who were willing to provide clandestine money to domestic progressive causes."

"I had all sorts of dirty tricks to hurt their circulation and financing. The people running Ramparts were vulnerable to blackmail. We had awful things in mind, some of which we carried off, though Ramparts fell of its own accord. We were not the least inhibited by the fact that the CIA had no internal security role in the United States."

CIA officer Edgar "Eddie" Applewhite about his 1967 operation against Ramparts magazine at the behest of Desmond FitzGerald. [ 5

Initial questions

Part of the "liberal CIA" network.

It wasn't until 2014, while writing ISGP's Cult of National Security Trolls article, that I really began to notice the extent of the manipulation of the political and religious/spiritual left in society, largely by certain liberal Eastern Establishment families and individuals. I always could see it to some extent, but for years on end I was bogged down in research dealing with the "traditional" CIA: drug, death squads, assassination, the neocon alliance starting in the late 1970s, and more.

But... what about "the left"? Even more so because the CIA leadership itself always seems to be much more liberal and globalist than the ultraright militants it loves to use around the world - not unlike a Rupert Murdoch owning Fox News. Well, the problem was, there was just never that much to be found.

Of course, huge amounts of (questionable) articles exist about Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission, the CFR and "the globalists" running them, but... those are pro-corporate liberal elites. We know that they simply must control just about the entirety of the media and most western political parties - from the liberals to labor and the greeners; even the socialists - just based on the endless and very systematic open borders propaganda coming from all of these groups. It almost appears as if there's a CIA aspect to that control, but this turns out to be very hard to define, let alone prove.

However, if we skip the obviously globalist, big business, liberal elite elements for a second... what about all this really low-level, seemingly grassroots activism, from psychedelic gurus of the 1960s to the much more modern Occupy Wall Street, Anonymous, Wikileaks and Edward Snowden, to all these relatively small "new left" media outlets? A lot of these elements do come across as propagandist, with most being as pro-open borders as Bilderberg elites.

And what about those strange activist sites of the early 2000s, when I was starting out with this type of research? Sites as Indymedia and GNN? What about "anti-establishment" left-wing political gurus as Noam Chomsky and Oliver Stone? Can they really lead us the way into the light? Chomsky's blatant denial of basic JFK and 9/11 questions is the reason that I hardly even bothered to read his work. It always surprised me how anyone ever could take him serious because of it. The same goes for Oliver Stone with regard to 9/11.

Most recently, I started to wonder what is up with all these strange "antifa" street protests in favor of open borders, especially when Trump came onto the scene. They just never fit with the opinions of the people around me.

In early 2015 these were definitely questions in my mind, but I didn't really try to find answers to them. Still, I did start to notice more and more peculiarities. The first one was that alternative media outlet Democracy Now! on occasion receives major financing from the Ford Foundation. At the time this blew my mind, because donations like these are very easy-to-spot proof that the government - or superclass - is financing supposedly independent opposition groups to the regular media. The Democracy Now! financing reminded me of "rumors" that The Nation magazine also has ties to the superclass.

Around the same time I ran into the Drug Policy Alliance, an outfit with massive Eastern Establishment backing that pushes not just marijuana legalization, but also stimulates research into MDMA, DMT, ayahuasca, ibogaine, mushrooms and other psychedelics. While today ISGP has a dedicated article on the history and elite ties of the psychedelics movement, mainly due to time constraints, at the time I did little with all this information, assuming for the time being that these ties and financing were incidental.

Actually, I did try to inform Joe Rogan about this last fact regarding the Drug Policy Alliance, considering his extreme interest in psychedelics, but that was about it. As usual, this effort fell on deaf ears. Rogan, as it turns out, transforms into an extremely suspicious character whenever conspiracy topics are brought up. This introduction is not the place to discuss this, but it's ironic that a year later Rogan actually invited Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance and Soros agent par excellence, to his podcast for the first time. During the hours-long conversation, not a word was mentioned by either person of all the big establishment money behind the Drug Policy Alliance. It's one of numerous instances that made me wonder to what extent the debate on the left is controlled by the superclass.

Questions and partial answers kept piling up throughout 2015 and 2016. Awaiting clarification, I actually couldn't finish more than half a dozen articles. In one I had to discuss superclass influence on the environmental movement, in another the so-called new religions movement, and in yet others topics as NSA domestic spying, Occupy Wall Street, the "new left" media, psychedelics, professional skeptics, George Soros, Jeffrey Epstein, Joe Rogan, or crop circles. As already determined to a large extent in the 2014 Cult of National Security Trolls article, each and every time the same elite foundations and individuals appeared to be operating in the background, also while exploring these related subjects.

I briefly tried discussing this elite network in sections of ISGP's Coast to Coast AM and Alex Jones articles, but by early 2016 the situation had become really unmanageable. Apart from virtually duplicate content being generated throughout the site, it was clear that a ton of additional research and organizing still was needed. Really the only way to go was to create a separate oversight of whatever this network is. The result the reader can find here.

This page is not exactly an article in the traditional sense. It's more like a quick reference guide by presenting brief summaries of a vast range of organizations and, even more important, supplementing it with credible sources. It's also structured in such a way that updating - including the updating of other ISGP articles that tie into this oversight - is made as easy as possible.

This easy updating aspect turned out to be essential, because an endless amount of additions have been made since the first version of this oversight. The main problem is that the discussion of this network, and certainly in the manner that it is done here, has been a rather unique endeavor. I had to gather sources from everywhere, in many cases having no other choice than to manually crawl through annual reports and Form 990s in order to figure out who has been financing what. From there I would run into other foundations and organizations that needed checking. You're talking thousands of hours of research and writing at this point for ISGP's "liberal CIA" series.

"Liberal CIA" explained: controlled opposition aspect of the liberal Eastern Establishment

This past year, 2016, while studying the liberal "new left" establishment, I sometimes ran across insiders to the liberal foundation network who were talking about working with "liberal CIA ... the best mafia you can deal with in the twentieth century" [6]. Or you read about them appealing to the "enlightened men of the liberal internationalistic wing of the CIA who were willing to provide clandestine money to domestic progressive causes." [7]

Subsequently, often from sources dating to later decades, I see these persons and their cliques flock around foundations as Rockefeller, Ford, Soros, Tides, Turner and others. Then I find that the first two of these foundations, along with the Carnegie Foundation and USAID, back in the 1950s and 1960s took over CIA financing of the important America-Africa Institute in order to prevent a potential kind of negative backlash. [8]

More and more all these little hints made me suspect that the Rockefeller family and their associates indeed are CIA. Of course, evidence along these lines had been creeping up long before, but I never really attached establishment CIA operations to the "new left", "alternative" media and anti-Wall Street activist groups pushing for social reform. I never even knew these top foundations were so deeply involved in this.

For the longest time, I was quite uncomfortable with the term "liberal CIA". Despite that, on a regular basis I kept finding evidence of its accuracy. For example, one late addition to this oversight is famous inventor and scientific theorist Buckminster Fuller. At first glance, it sounds utterly ridiculous to label Buckminster Fuller "CIA". But I maintained these suspicions based on Fuller's involvement in the (Laurance Rockefeller-influenced) Esalen Institute and because he has been such an inspiration to various members that built the psychedelic movement, not to mention the curious John Brockman of the Edge Foundation and TED Talks-tied annual Billionaires' Dinners. In the end, it's just a "gut feeling" based on a limited number of facts.

But, as usual, where there's smoke, there's fire. Months later I ran into the fact that Fuller's closest associate in writing a lot of his key work was E. J. Applewhite, a CIA covert operations officer who actually was assigned the job of undermining the (bizarre) left-wing Ramparts magazine. Apart from the fact that this is the gazillonth piece of evidence that the CIA has always been active domestically, and not exactly in a legal manner, it also clearly ties Fuller to the CIA.

Another few months later I find that Brendan O. Regan has been "Research Coordinator for R. Buckminster Fuller". There's no absolute proof, but looking at Regan's deep involvement in SRI and IONS, as well as a number of statements that exist about him, he appears to have been an important CIA officer (or asset) and in any case was an important national security insider.

Yet another few months later I find that early board members of the Buckminster Fuller Institute have included Margaret Mead, whose Macy Conferences can be linked to the CIA's MKULTRA program, among other ties of hers; Norman Cousins, a Pilgrims Society member who founded the United World Federalists under the CIA's Cord Meyer; and Neva Rockefeller Goodwin, a daughter of David Rockefeller and future vice chairman of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Obviously, the Rockefeller family has been best friends with a number of past CIA directors, most notably the Dulles brothers, John McCone and Richard Helms.

So, what are we left to conclude here? Certainly that there is something going on here with Buckminster Fuller that we, the masses, have never been informed about. The same goes for all other persons, institutes and media outlets discussed here. There are all kinds of covert elite and national security/CIA overlaps. And, ultimately, shedding light on these anomalies is all that this oversight is trying to accomplish.

Rockefellers and friends as "superclass CIA"

September 11, 2006: Fake debate about Pentagon-no-plane theories and the like between the Loose Change creators and Popular Mechanics representatives (both tied to ultraright CIA interests) on Democracy Now!, a "new left" media outfit massively financed by foundations as Carnegie, Ford, MacArthur, Lannan, Soros, etc.

Keep in mind, these debates usually are utterly realistic with "actors" having adopted a decades-long or even life-long cover-personality. I discuss this aspect in ISGP's Cult of National Security Trolls article.

Actually, soon after the original version of this introduction here was done, I added chapters to ISGP's Pilgrims Society article, including The Cold War Rockefeller CIA network, in which the CIA connections of the Rockefeller family and their closest friends are summarized. Turns out, the family not only maintained friendships with CIA directors, secretaries of state, national security advisors and presidents, Nelson and especially David Rockefeller (and through him, certainly also Laurance Rockefeller) were briefed by CIA division chiefs on covert operations and actively fronted for the CIA in the anti-communist "Cultural Cold War". The same goes for most of their closest establishment friends (most of whom have been Pilgrims).

In other words, for the longest time the CIA directorship and other key government positions involved in the oversight of the most secret operations actually were handed to key members of the liberal Rockefeller establishment, forming a kind of "superclass CIA" network that sat on top of the "bureaucratic CIA" - or even the Special Group, the CIA oversight body that fell under the national security advisor. Certainly not everyone agreed all the time (far from it), but a system was created in which proteges of political, banking and think tank elites invariably emerged as leading candidates for the exact same positions their mentors held. In this process, Democrat and Republican party lines hardly mattered. This process was somewhat interrupted in November 2016 with the election of Donald Trump, although we have to be cognizant that persons who filled key cabinet posts under Trump still shared a variety of NGOs with the likes of Henry Kissinger and James Woolsey - and that the conservative movement seems to be little more than controlled opposition.

The ties of the Rockefellers and their friends to the CIA and national security state, as well as the grooming process in establishment circles, is described in much more detail in ISGP's Pilgrims Society article. With the passing of David Rockefeller in March 2017, the era of Rockefeller globalization might be over. But the elite NGOs and liberal CIA foundations remain in place and a re bigger than ever.

1976 Church Committee: CIA loves elite foundations for cover

In another huge coincidence - if we can even call it that at this point - it wasn't until early 2018, a solid two years after this article and everything above was written, that I ran into a very obscure part of the 1976 Church Committee report. Even today in 2018, I only found one obscure back-alley/data-dump link that includes the entire Church Committee report, including its foundation segment, and accessible for free. One assumes such a thing can only be due to the report's sensitivity. As for the foundation network, the report reads:

"During the 1950s and 1960s, the CIA turned increasingly to covert action in the area of student and labor matters, cultural affairs, and community developments. ... The CIA subsidized, advised, and even helped develop "private" organizations that would compete with the communists around the world. ... [Many] were U.S.-based student, labor, cultural, or philanthropic organizations whose international activities the CIA subsidized. ...



"The philanthropic [CIA] fronts used prior to 1967 funded a seemingly limitless range of covert action programs affecting youth groups, labor unions, universities, publishing houses, and other private institutions in the United States and abroad. ... Support [was provided to, for instance] an international organization of veterans and an international foundation for developing countries [as well as] an organization of journalists and an international women's association. ... Agency funds were used to host foreign visitors [and] provide scholarships to an international cooperative training center at a United States university... The CIA assisted in the establishment in 1951 and the funding for over a decade of a research institute at a major American university. ...



"By 1967, when public disclosure of NSA [National Student Association]'s funding ... caused a major curtailment of these activities, interest in the major covert action efforts in these areas was already waning.



"There appear to be two reasons for this. First, there was considerable skepticism within the CIA as to the effectiveness of this approach. ... Richard Helms [explained], "The clandestine operator ... is trained to believe that you really can't count on the honesty of your agent to do exactly what you want or to report accurately unless you own him body and soul."



"Second, it became increasingly difficult to conceal the CIA funds that supported these activities as the scale of the operations grew. By fiscal year 1967, for example, over $3 million [$22.5 million in 2018] was budgeted for youth and student programs and $6 million [$45 million in 2018] for labor. Most of the funds were transmitted through legitimate or "devised" foundations -- that is, fictitious entities established by the CIA.



"The use of philanthropic organizations was a convenient way to pass funds, in that large amounts could be transferred rapidly, and in a form that need not alert unwitting officers of the recipient organizations to their source. In addition, foundation grants bestowed upon the recipient the apparent "blessing" of the foundation. The funding pattern involved a mixture of bona fide charitable foundations, devised foundations and funds, [CIA] "front men" drawn from a list of America's most prominent citizens, and lawyers representing undisclosed clients.



"The CIA's intrusion into the foundation field in the 1960s can only be described as massive. Excluding grants from the "Big Three" -- Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie -- of the 700 grants over $10,000 given by 164 other foundations during the period 1963-1966, at least 108 involved partial or complete CIA funding. More importantly, CIA funding was involved in nearly half the grants the non-"Big Three" foundations made during this period in the field of international activities. In the same period more than one-third of the grants awarded by non-"Big Three" in the physical, life and social sciences also involved CIA funds.



"Bona fide foundations, rather than those controlled by the CIA, were considered the best and most plausible kind of funding cover for certain kinds of operations. A 1966 CIA study explained the use of legitimate foundations was the most effective way of concealing the CIA's hand as well as reassuring members of funded organizations that the organization was in fact supported by private funds." [9]

Although it's a shame that the reports circumvents mentioning the exact level of CIA ties of the "big three" foundations, and also excludes the names of all organizations (including "publishing houses") the CIA was financing, this report remains quite incredible. For starters, so many elements of this supposedly defunct CIA network are extremely recognizable in the modern world:

There are the "big three": Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie - to this day key foundations in this "new" "liberal CIA" network.



There is the shared "America's most prominent citizens" component.

component.

While the focus is a little different today, we also see that all the same type of NGO and seemingly non-NGO organizations are being funded.



Arguably today's foundation network is making use of a variety of fronts to channel or launder a portion of its grants through. A lot of major foundations have been financing more minor foundations or institutes, which in turn finance other, often relatively obscure, or controversial, groups. The Tides Foundation, Threshold Foundation, Sunlight Foundation, and the Alliance for Global Justice are examples of this. The Proteus Fund is another candidate. It doesn't even have to be about controversy, such as with the Warren Buffett family's NoVo Foundation pumping multi-millions annually in the Nike Foundation and the New World Foundation, the latter chaired by Hillary Clinton in the 1980s and more recently the recipient of financing from Black Lives Matter activist and singer Beyonce. Today it is very common that foundation A is financing foundation B, with both making contributions to foundation or institute C. Much of this seems to be about creating the illusion of a more diverse funding base, making the situation look less conspicuous. Along that same line, it is basically the norm that major foundations switch places all the time with the institutes they finance. It seems very clear though that these grants are coordinated at a very high level.

To summarize, it looks as if today's modern "liberal CIA" network is an improved, more deniable version of the one first unearthed in 1967 and discussed more in-depth by the Church Committee in 1976. The foundations, supplemented with corporate financing in many places, are so large these days - with a good number of them focused on very overt "democracy-sponsoring" (i.e. coup-plotting) - that the CIA doesn't need to transfer black budget funds through them anymore. The Agency can just focus on... whatever it is they are focused on - which might well be the continued penetration of upcoming American businesses and foundations, western political parties, and any potential "alternative" media and activism networks. In this last instance, think 9/11 "Truth", for example, or many elements of the conservative controlled opposition network, which only has very few foundations backing it. Somebody has to pay all those John Birchers and conspiracy Nazis. Alex Jones and Jeff Rense are just two names that come to mind.

As for Soros, he is now spending up to a billion dollars a year undermining undesirable "populist" presidents all throughout the West, including Trump in the United States, and Eastern Europe - and has operations throughout the world, working alongside USAID, Madeleine Albright's National Democratic Institute, the National Endowment for Democracy and other NGOs. It is very much possible that Soros' entire Open Society Foundations network is loaded from top to bottom with (deniable) CIA agents. The Ford Foundation, at least in the United States, is very active along the same political lines - "anti-racism" and LGBTQ rights - and has been rumored to be an arm of the CIA for many decades at this point. Together, these two foundations alone are worth $32 billion.

That $32 billion was worth $4.3 billion in 1967. If these foundations spent the minimum number of 5% of that, together they would be spending $215 million back in 1967, over three times more than the CIA had trouble hiding back in those days. Then consider that all major "liberal CIA" foundations today are worth about $150 billion together, so back in 1967 these foundations - if they all would have existed with the wealth they have today - would have been spending a minimum of roughly $1 billion annually.

Looking at these numbers, it seems clear why the Rockefeller network, with close friends as former CIA director Richard Helms, developed such an obsession with developing corporate and billionaire philanthropy. In recent years alone, much of Silicon Valley has been recruited, which is obvious just by looking at their extremely uniform political allegiances: they're all Democrat and all pro-Third World immigration - and the only "dissenter", Peter Thiel, is a billionaire Bilderberg steering committee member deeply involved in the financing of what appear to be controlled opposition networks. Creating such a giant network of philanthropists makes sense if one wants to have a huge pool of money available that can transferred to tightly-controlled research institutes, action groups and "alternative" media outlets that need it to survive - with the ability to hide these CIA-type donations within a larger pool of funds that seemingly go to perfectly legitimate philanthropic organizations.

That having been said, modern billionaire philanthropy is questionable business at best. Much of it comes down to social and media pressure and rich people preferring to spent money on pet projects (and reaping prestige while pretending not to care about that), and getting some additional positive media attention for their businesses in the process. Instead, it can be argued that it would be better if most of the funds locked in elite tax-exempt foundations are taxed and spend by national governments on roads, public transport, healthcare, social security and related programs to help the poor, the environment, border security (limiting Third World immigration), projects to increase the native white birth rate, and so much more. Private philanthropy has traditionally hardly existed in north-west Europe and, certainly before the problem of mass Third World immigration, have been the best-organized post-World War II societies in the history of the world. The U.S., on the other hand, with all its corporate philanthropy, has been the best example in the West of severe labor exploitation, huge income inequality, a huge lack of social and health care programs, and a terrible state of public transport. What we have here instead is that hundreds of millions of dollars that should have been taxed, are spent on attacking a democratically-elected president, Donald Trump.

Someone could counter with the argument that Trump is a huge problem, especially with regard to social programs and the environment. True, but at the same time there's quite a bit of evidence discussed elsewhere on ISGP that "populist" extremists as Trump are little more than controlled opposition assets - and that a lot of extreme "left-versus-right" bickering that is so typical of the U.S. (and increasingly more in Europe all of a sudden with the rise of "populism") actually is sponsored by the national security state, with a huge portion of the left-wing element being taking care of by major foundations. Maybe if this extremely large network of globalist "liberal CIA" NGOs didn't exist, or was much smaller, all of a sudden the CIA wouldn't have the capability anymore to keep this conservative controlled opposition element in our society under control. That's speculation, but what is fact is that the foundations discussed here absolutely play an overwhelming role in managing left-wing dissent in our society. And also that they most certainly are behaving like they are part of a private intelligence agency.

Ultimately, I suspect that the whole "liberal CIA" network initially came together rather organically as a combination of genuine liberal ideas (but not necessarily socialist) within the Eastern Establishment and the need to satisfy and maintain an anti-communist left in the West. The core of this network early on was formed through the close relationship between David Rockefeller and CIA director Allen Dulles (whom David Rockefeller promised the Ford Foundation presidency if Dulles wasn't elected CIA director), Dulles' protege John McCone, and then Richard Helms. During this early period more and more CIA-linked conspiracies took place, including CIA drug trafficking, the 1963 JFK assassination, and MKULTRA. Meanwhile, opposition arose to the Vietnam War, more and more alternative media outlets became available, and eventually the internet came along, followed by an ever-worsening Third World immigration crisis and the 9/11 event, both of which sparked huge new waves of government skeptics. It appears that with each step this elite network became more elaborate and sophisticated in managing dissent in western society. Arguably control over left-wing thinking has always been deemed the most important, because it is the most sophisticated and, due to urbanization, increasingly widespread, with Third World immigration being the primary obsession of the liberal superclass. Thus, the need for elaborate control and promotion of globalism at all levels of the left led to the build up of foundations that could be promoted by (the already controlled) media as independent. In contrast, right-wingers only need to be portrayed as a bunch of crazy, conspiracy-mongering bigots or hopelessly impractical isolationists. The CIA budget might be able to handle that. But it appears it couldn't handle managing the left all around the West and in various other places in the world. Thus, the "liberal CIA" foundations were built up.

However, where the CIA and its covert domestic arm begins and the NGO leadership ends is impossible to say at this point. We need to get much more detail on how people are recruited and who exactly is steering assets around, and where, including those contacting ISGP.

The "real CIA"

The coincidences keep stacking up. Around the same time that I ran into the 1976 Church Committee report describing the CIA's fondness of using elite foundations - large or small - to launder its funds through, I also ran into a 1989 article series of Lyndon LaRouche's Executive Intelligence Review. EIR might not be the most ideal stand-alone source, but their description of the "real CIA" is just too relevant to pass over here. It is very unique in its detail and ISGP fully agrees with them - a conclusion reached independently:

"The Anglo-American financial Establishment operates principally through an octopus-like structure made up of think tanks, tax-exempt foundations, and law firms which, in turn, act to spawn civic movements, protest groups, political action committees, and even pseudo-religions, as it suits their purposes. ...



"[This] "real CIA" [is] a vast octopus extending far beyond the compound at Langley, Virginia and penetrating many agencies of government, as well as most think tanks on behalf of private financier interests rather than any elected agency of government. ... The "real CIA" [is] running [a] vast social engineering operation against the American public...



"Back in the immediate postwar period, some Establishment "spooks," such as IBM founder Thomas "Pop" Watson argued that the covert operations function should be run exclusively through private agencies such as the major Anglo-American multinational corporations, banks, and law firms, as they had been prior to World War II.



"An uneasy compromise was struck, such that, even as the CIA was being established, parallel private agencies such as the Rand Corporation and the Ford Foundation were coming into being as well. From the outset, Rand, the Ford Foundation, and other foundations and think tanks were firmly under the top-down control of the "utopians," [Rockefeller globalists] whose vision of a postwar world federalist arrangement [global goverment with less powerful local authorities] was reflected in their sponsorship of the "post-industrial society" myth, the ecology movement, the New Age, and the drug-rock counterculture.



"This world federalist faction has also been in the forefront of efforts to revive the Trust, a global power-sharing arrangement with Bolshevik Russia that had been attempted at the time of the Russian Revolution and up through Stalin's consolidation of power in the 1930s." [10]

These comments were based on statements LaRouche was making in 1973, but the original quotes cannot be found at this point. The only thing available is that someone back in 1974 in EIR-predecessor magazine, the New Solidarity International Press Service, wrote that "blowing official CIA activities and personnel to cover the activities of the real CIA" [11] is quite common practice by the establishment.

EIR actually appears to have been the only alternative publication to have picked up on the fact that the Eastern Establishment tried to form a privately-funded intelligence agency that would serve as the successor to World War II's OSS. Truman did not agree and played his part in seeing to the creation of the CIA in 1947. True, the CIA was founded and dominated by the Eastern Establishment as well, but at least it was set up as a federal apparatus. The original source for this privately-funded CIA network is a mainstream book from 1972 on the history of the OSS that was discussed in the Washington Post at the time. The book reads:

"Private enterprise at first hoped to fill the void [of what would become the OSS successor]. One former OSS Deputy Director approached Thomas Watson of IBM with a business proposition. Why not form a private intelligence organization and offer its services on contract to the government? These two men raised the initial capital for the venture, but their efforts were in vain. The White House soon approved the creation of [the] Central Intelligence Agency." [12]

This is a pretty amazing statement, especially in light of the fact that the unnamed OSS deputy director and Thomas Watson - a Nazi collaborator whose family members have been generational members of the Pilgrims Society, alongside the Rockefellers - had already raised the funds for this operation. Did IBM put up the money by itself? Or did Eastern Establishment friends as Nelson Rockefeller, Vincent Astor, Winthrop Aldrich, the Mellons and future top-level CIA officer Kermit Roosevelt help put up these funds? After all, as this author rediscovered, pre-World War II there existed "The Room" and the Walrus Club in New York City, which constituted a private intelligence network combining British intelligence, the American OSS - through OSS chief William Donovan and Pilgrim elitist David Bruce - and the elite families just mentioned (except Mellon). Whether or not something was secretly done with Thomas Watson's private intelligence network is impossible to say, but it most certainly should be clear that these elite interests did, in fact, form a kind of private intelligence network that is more secret that the CIA itself. As a matter of fact, it has never been exposed, despite copious amounts of evidence for its existence. "Liberal CIA", "conservative CIA" and conspiracy disinformation networks, including those aspects funded by Laurance Rockefeller, all point in that direction.

As for LaRouche's comment that the "real CIA" of Eastern Establishmentarians regularly exposes the official, bureaucratic CIA, that is an interesting statement to reflect on in light of all the New York Times, Washington Post and modern "new left" magazine exposés about right-wing CIA activities, from ties to the National Student Association in the 1960s, to domestic activity related to the anti-Vietnam War movement in the early 1970s, followed by MKULTRA, the Phoenix Project and other right-wing CIA programs; to Iran-Contra and the BCCI in the 1980s, to Blackwater and extraordinary renditions right after 9/11. I certainly have noticed that quite a bit of CIA exposing has been done by otherwise very propagandist individuals and magazines with close links to foundations as Ford and Open Society (Soros). Thus it's a very odd game that is going on: much of the time things simply come down to "liberal CIA" exposing "conservative CIA" and vice versa. It's all posturing and screenplay - and the bigger picture is never revealed.

Zbigniew Brzezinski seems to have admitted this left-versus-right screenplay when he, with a triumphant expression on his face, explained back in 1989 on C-Span the criticism on his Trilateral Commission by members of the public:

"In the mid 60s I was on the policy planning council of the Department of State. In 1960 I was marginally involved in the Kennedy campaign for the president's foreign policy brain trust. In 1968 I directed the foreign policy task forces for vice president [Hubert] Humphrey, who was running for the presidency. In 1972 I became director of the Trilateral Commission ... In 1976 I directed the foreign policy task forces for Jimmy Carter. Then I became [his] national security advisor for four years. ... In 1988, I was co-chairman with Brent Scowcroft and Henry Kissinger of the foreign policy task force of vice president Bush [who was running for president]. ...



"Not only did I run [the Trilateral Commission]. I helped to found and organize it with David Rockefeller. So if any of your viewers is conspiracy-minded, here is one of the conspirators. ... Look, the Commission operates openly. There's nothing secret about it. ...



"I encounter this [criticism that the Trilateral Commission "guides the foreign policy of this country"] all the time when I speak around the country. The cooks that pop up with this theory come either from the extreme, loony left-wing perspective; or the extreme loony right-wing perspective.



"If it's a loony right-winger [i.e., "conservative CIA" like Alex Jones], he will stand up and say, "You are a conspiracy people who want to empose a one world government and deprive us of our souvereignty."



"And if it's an extremely loony left-winger [i.e. "liberal CIA" like Democracy Now! or related], he'll stand up and say, "You are a conspiracy of rich capitalists who want to control the world for the sake of global profits."



"And that crazy outfit LaRouche started with the left and swung to the right, for example, over the last 15 years." [13]

The reader should really keep in mind that the left-versus-right debate is very, very easy to spot. Almost all "liberal CIA" assets have the exact same opinions. In the minority of cases that they don't support Clinton or Obama it is always in protest of "corporatism" and sometimes "militarism". And no matter what, they are always pro-Third World immigration. Those two elements basically are never touched, along with the green aspect. Some of the more radical "liberal CIA" assets are 9/11 "truthers". While they may not necessarily all push the bogus idea that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon (an almost golden rule in 9/11 "Truth" circles), none of them have ever really gone into any detail about what exactly is wrong with the event. They just argue in favor of a new investigation.

Of course, it's possible to go into a lot of detail why the LaRouche organization - which is a little different from any other group, as also described by Brzezinki - simply is not credible enough to be mentioned here. That includes countless never-backed-up "Tavistock" and "Britain-did-it" claims in the articles just cited from. LaRouche's wife, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, and other leading light of the LaRouche organization, post-9/11 were involved in Thierry Meyssan's Axis of Peace group, dominated by communists, extreme socialists, Holocaust deniers and, of course, 9/11-no-planers as Meyssan and others. Unsurprisingly, the LaRouche organization also virulently pro-Third World immigration and hates Trump - similar to virtual all media outlets and political parties in existence. In March 2016, Helga Zepp-LaRouche wrote:

"The images of refugees at the Greek-Macedonian border are the reflection of the total inhumanity of the EU...



"The monetarist paradigm is producing fascist movements, such as that of Donald Trump in the United States and Alternative für Deutschland in Germany. Here, a demonstration of 40,000 organized by the xenophobic, right-wing Pegida movement in Dresden, Germany." [14]

Suddenly, the Larouche organization lost all middle ground here. Fact is, the LaRouche organization has always been an unusual brand of leftist socialism. It could never really be branded "right-wing", but it is fascinating nevertheless that Brzezinski singled out the LaRouche organzation at the time. That's generally reserved for controlled opposition groups.

Nevertheless, one can definitely make the case that a lot of old Executive Intelligence Review work, especially from the 1970s and 1980s, contains countless gold nuggets and accurate descriptions of elitist networks. For starters, almost no other conspiracy publication ever described Le Cercle or the 1001 Club, not when EIR did it at least. EIR also gave information on various elites that to this day have only been "rediscoverd" by ISGP through the ISGP's Superclass Index. Also when discussing "conservative CIA" networks, it didn't take long for this author to once again find EIR being the only outlet to describe the left-right controlled opposition paradigm, complete with NGOs and individuals also under investigation by ISGP.

Credible or not, the only thing really important here is that in 1989 Executive Intelligence Review described the "real CIA" as an Eastern Establishment structure consisting of "tax-exempt foundations [that] spawn civic movements, protest groups, political action committees, and even pseudo-religions..." - while this is exactly what ISGP has been researching in this "liberal CIA" series of articles. It may not be wise to mention EIR here, but at the same time it might also be interesting for readers to have this additional perspective on what the "real CIA" actually might be.

Despite it being much less certain, EIR's claim of a "power-sharing arrangement" with Russia has also been included for a very specific reason. This because it seems to be next to impossible to escape the grasp of the "liberal CIA" network - even when moving abroad. For every "right wing" CIA conspiracy based on black budget or drug money, there appears to be a foundation-backed "liberal CIA" one trying to counter it. Look, for example, at CIA support for Contra drug trafficking and death squads against the Sandinistas. When you look around in the elite foundation-backed "liberal CIA" network, it's possible to find many historic backers of the Sandinistas, generally all of them new agers, conspiracy disinformers, (black) civil rights activists, or later Third World immigration pushers (including Hillary Clinton and her long-time Rockefeler Foundation, Bilderberg and Trilateral Commission advisor Vernon Jordan, both at the New World Foundation in the 1980s). Some of them also have ties to foreign communist or Muslim leaders, who seem to be equally content to hold the line on conspiracy disinformation: Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and Malaysia's Mahathir Mohamed are four countries in this regard that come to mind. All that really is too much to discuss here.

So, witout going into any additional detail, the CIA and "real CIA", or "superclass CIA", are very hard to define entities. It is no wonder then that people have been talking about a "shadow government", "the Illuminati" and the "New World Order" for a vry long time. That alone is why ISGP sticks to the term "liberal CIA" for elite liberal foundation-backed propagandists - all with very similar globalist ideas - claiming to be "anti-establishment". The only way to make progress is to take things one step at a time and have clear definitions of what is being observed.

CIA at home or abroad: infiltrate, disinform, polarize, destabilize

Soros, Buffett and Ford foundations-backed Women's March protest - with Charlize Theron and dozens of other leading actors.

Relevant information to the "liberal CIA" oversights keeps popping up over the months and years. I only found out about it in early April 2019, but in 1975 the Church Committee, set up to look into CIA abuses, published a report entitled Covert Action in Chile: 1963-1973. Going through the report and making a point-summary of how the CIA penetrated Chilean society at every level and started "polarizing" and "destabilizing" it in preparation for the Pinochet coup, I couldn't help but notice the incredible parallels with what we see today in the West.

In fact, it is pretty much impossible to deny that what the NGOs, street protest groups, and media outlets - respectively funded by "liberal CIA" and "conservative CIA" foundations - are doing today, is EXACTLY what the CIA is known to have been doing in Chile in the early 1970s. Extremist positions being played off against one another on a daily basis through the media and activist groups has basically become the norm. Let's cite a number of passages from the report:

"Various CIA projects [included the] backing of a group that supported anti-communist propaganda activities through wall posters attributed to fictitious groups, leaflet campaigns, and public heckling . ... Poster distribution and sign-painting teams ... leaflets [and] picture books [were spread]. ...



"[This] "scare campaign" contributed to the political polarization [in society] of the period. Themes developed during the campaign were [later] exploited even more intensely... The propaganda projects probably had a substantial cumulative effect over these years, both in helping to polarize public opinion concerning the nature of the threat posed by ... leftists. ...



"The CIA supported an anti-communist women's group active in Chilean political and intellectual life. [It was] splintering the non-Marxist Radical Party [and] supporting CIA-selected [political] candidates ...



"Projects [of the CIA] had been conducted since the 1950's among peasants, slum dwellers , organized labor , students , and the media ... Other assets funded under this project placed CIA-inspired editorials almost daily in El Mercurio, Chile's major newspaper and, after 1968, exerted substantial control over the content of that paper's international news section." [15]

The Krassenstein brothers: prominent pro-LGBTQ, pro-open borders, anti-Trump Twitter trolls with 1.6 mln "followers" in mid 2019. They also founded anti-Trump "news" site hillreporter.com. Obvious "liberal CIA" suspects.

Guess what? Sep. 2018-leaked private video of Brian Krassenstein: "The resistance is a really good group of people. [But] of course, higher-ups pay us. Yeah, people pay us. They want us to help sow the division and to take over Trump's Twitter feed. ... They don't want Trump supporters to be seen in that."

Who are they? And who, in turn, are they representing?

What more is there to add? The parallels with what the "liberal CIA" and "conservative CIA" foundations have been doing are uncanny. We really should be hunting for reliable insider testimony as to what exactly is going on within today's "charitable" networks.

Back in 1977, a lot of information came out, largely through Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein, about "Mockingbird", or the "Mighty Wurlitzer": i.e., the CIA's cooperation with the New York Times, Washington Post, Time, CBS, ABC and other media outlets. Generally the heads of these media corporations were close to the CIA leadership. On the other hand, it appeared that various media heads, such as Katharine Graham, were purposely not informed in any kind of official manner and looking away while the CIA was stacking their media outlets with reliable assets.

It appears that the same process is going on with many of today's activist foundations, NGOs and media outlets. If the CIA was involved in these (domestic) practices in the 50s, 60s and 70s, then why would they have stopped? Most likely the only thing they have done since then is to make things more deniable. The propaganda in the entirety of the media is just too tight, similar and systematic to not put forward the theory that some central, covert entity is orchestrating it, similar to Frank Wisner's good old "Mighty Wurlitzer".

Those interested in the Church Committee report, might find the following point-summary of everything mentioned in it very helpful. In pre-Pinochet Chile, the CIA, under the oversight of Henry Kissinger's 40 Committee, was:

backing an anti-communist wire service, starting in the 1950s.

establishing covert liaisons with Chile's civilian and military intelligence services.

covertly financing the Christian Democrat party of Eduardo Frei, Chile's president from 1964 to 1970.

implementing covert action and financing during the 1964 elections in support of Frei involving the "backing of a group that supported anti-communist propaganda activities through wall posters attributed to fictitious groups, leaflet campaigns, and public heckling." Apparently, this CIA-backed campaign involved an "important part" of the 1964 presidential elections.

Apparently, this CIA-backed campaign involved an of the 1964 presidential elections. implementing covert action from about 1963 until its exposure in 1967 to increase Christian Democrat support and anti-communist sentiment among "peasants and slum dwellers" . Not considered effective.

. Not considered effective. running an NGO in Santiago to compete with the Marxists in aiding the poor 1963-1969. The project was terminated after the asset in charge refused to "use [it] on a large scale to deliver votes in the 1969 and 1970 presidential elections." Not considered effective.

Not considered effective. infiltrating labor unions starting in 1964 to counter communist-oriented ones. Not considered effective.

providing covert financing in the mid 1960s of an "anti-communist women's group active in Chilean political and intellectual life."

providing covert financing to the anti-communist right wing of the Radical Party in 1967. This wing lost and as a result set up up its own party, Radical Democracy, in 1969. This may have been the objective of the CIA as well, because in the run up to the 1970 elections it was working on "splintering the non-Marxist Radical Party..."

providing (successful) covert financing of a dissident splinter group of Allende's Socialist Party that split the vote in the March 1969 congressional elections.

backing "a right-wing weekly newspaper" during and after Allende's presidential campaign.

during and after Allende's presidential campaign. funding "an asset" who produced radio shows that attacked left wing parties while "supporting CIA-selected candidates."

who produced radio shows that attacked left wing parties while infiltrating Chile's leading newspaper, El Mercurio, from the mid 1960s on, to produce daily anti-Allende editorials and news reports. The business section in particular was also read widely throughout Latin America. Newspaper assets were receiving direct instruction/suggestion from the CIA station in Chile on what to write.

in general, working to "polarize public opinion concerning ... communists and other leftists..." through media and activist propaganda.

through media and activist propaganda. running "spoiling operations" against Allende involving "the use of virtually all media within Chile" to propagandize the idea that "an Allende victory [would lead to] violence and Stalinist repression."

against Allende involving to propagandize the idea that disseminating "black propaganda ... to sow dissent between Communists and Socialists" in the run up to the 1970 elections.

in the run up to the 1970 elections. producing "hundreds of thousands of high-quality ... posters and leaflets [and] picture books" and setting up "sign-painting teams" , all aimed against Allende in the 1969 and 1970 elections.

and setting up , all aimed against Allende in the 1969 and 1970 elections. creating "a newsletter mailed to approximately two thousand journalists, academicians, politicians, and other opinion makers."

advising ITT, of which former CIA director John McCone was a board member, on how to covertly pass $350,000 to Allende opponent Jorge Alessandri, a former right-wing president of Chile who partially embraced Pinochet.

advising "other U.S. businesses" (Pilgrims Society-dominated Anaconda Copper would be among them) on covertly providing another $350,000 to Alessandri.

(Pilgrims Society-dominated Anaconda Copper would be among them) on covertly providing another $350,000 to Alessandri. providing over $7 million to Allende opposition groups after he became president in 1970. This was used to buy media and radio station for opposing political parties, continue the existing propaganda campaign, foment strikes and build a large, unified front against Allende.

directly (and indirectly) funding the paramilitary Patria y Libertad "in an effort to create tension [under Allende] and a possible pretext for intervention by the Chilean military."

certainly indirectly funding the Rolando Matus Brigade, another anti-Allende paramilitary group.

Pinochet: hated by "liberal CIA"; loved by "conservative CIA". The Rockefellers? Right in the middle.

Ironically, days after running into and summarizing the above Church Committee report, totally unrelated I scanned David Rockefeller's 2002 Memoirs for any mention of the War on Terror or Osama bin Laden. No success there, but the word "terror" did lead to a section of the book where Rockefeller talks about El Mercurio, Chile's dominant CIA-"penetrated" newspaper from the Church Committee report mentioned above. In a fascinating series of admissions, Rockefeller wrote:

"Allende, an avowed Marxist and leader of the Chilean Socialist Party, campaign in 1970 on a platform of radical land reform, the expropriation of all foreign corporations, the nationalization of banks, [putting] his country firmly on the road to Socialism. In March 1970, well before the election, my friend Augustin (Doonie) Edwards, publisher of El Mercurio, Chile's leading newspaper, told me that Allende was a Soviet dupe... If Allende won, Doonie warned, Chile would become another Cuba, a satellite of the Soviet Union. ...



"Doonie's concerns were so intense that I put him in touch with [Nixon national security advisor, 40 Committee chair, and secretary of state] Henry Kissinger. I later learned that Doonie's reports confirmed the intelligence already received from official intelligence sources, which led the Nixon administration to increase its clandestine financial subsidies to groups opposing Allende." [16]

This tie actually is not too surprising, considering David Rockefeller already has been identified as a chief lobbyist of CIA intervention in Chile at the time, in no small part through his Americas Society. That having said, how often in this article and others has ISGP argued that David Rockefeller was CIA? Quite often. And here we have another example.

The Church Committee already explained that the propaganda put out by CIA-controlled publications, politicians and action groups about Allende being the next communist dictator were just that... propaganda. They were very much overblown. As discussed in ISGP's "conservative CIA" article, this does not mean that Allende's economic policies would have worked, but the CIA-backed Pinochet coup, soon leading to Milton Friedman-devised neoliberal "shock therapy" (Friedman was equally tied to David Rockefeller through the "right-wing" Chicago School), most definitely was strongly tied to the interests of U.S. big business.

Once again it's an interesting question why the various Rockefeller foundations have funded so many "new left" causes over the decades, most of whom identify with the Allende cause, while the Rockefellers and friends have been tied to a range of big business-linked CIA coups.

Google: "WH and State Dept. support [to do what] CIA cannot..."

As explained several times before, new chapters have been added to this "liberal CIA" article on a chronological basis to demonstrate how this author time and again is bumping into the same type of information. Here is yet another example.

Both Google, the company, and Google.org, otherwise known as the Google Foundation, have been part of this "liberal CIA" oversight since 2016. Google might not have as wide a focus as the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation, the various Rockefeller foundations, or Soros' Open Society Foundations, but its "grassroots" activism funding does overlap here and there with these "liberal CIA" foundations. Examples that have been mentioned include the Sunlight Foundation, the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, Wikipedia, the Wikileaks-linked Bureau of Investigative Journalism and the Tor Project, the Berkman Kleinman Center for Internet & Security (Berkman Center) and the Center for Democracy and Technology. As can be seen, Google focuses a lot on internet-related NGOs.

It is quite well known that Google is a company that has been very supportive of the Democrat Party since at least the late 2000s. Still, digging into these ties in preparation for a potential lawsuit against Google, it still was quite shocking to observe just how close these ties have grown, and how quickly. Google's long-time CEO (now through Alphabet), Eric Schmidt, has been very close to the Clintons and Obamas, their campaign managers, served as a de facto campaign manager, and had a very deep and personal relationship with the Obama White House. It's no surprise then to see just how extreme Google, through its search engine and through YouTube, is with censoring conservatives and teaching its AI search algorithms along social justice lines.

Rhodes Scholar and "retired" State Department employee Jared Cohen and Google CEO Eric Schmidt, the founders of Google's Jigsaw Think/Act Tank, at the CFR in 2013.

Google's ties to the Obama White House actually go deeper than a mere political-economic alliance. This author didn't realize this until June 29, 2019, upon reading an October 23, 2014 article of Newsweek (of all the publications) entitled Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems. In the article, Assange describes a June 2011 meeting with Google CEO Eric Schmidt and Schmidt's ally Jared Cohen. Schmidt had just become a Bilderberg steering committee member and would join the Trilateral Commission in 2015. Already since 1999, two years before being appointed Google CEO, Schmidt was a founding director of the New America Foundation, an NGO with deep ties to the David Rockefeller clique and "liberal CIA" financing. Schmidt's then-girlfriend, Lisa Shields, the long-time vice president of Global Communications and Media Relations of the Council on Foreign Relations, tagged along with him to Assange.

As for Cohen, when he met Assange with Schmidt, he only had just come over to the newly-founded Google Ideas / Jigsaw think tank from the State Department, where, under Bush, he initially advised secretary of state Condoleezza Rice - George Shultz's chief protege; and then, until 2010, Hillary Clinton under Obama. A Rhodes Scholar, today Cohen is a CFR member and can be found as a council member at Stanford's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI), where, at least a decade ago, an International Advisory Council existed with close David Rockefeller names on it as George Shultz, John Whitehead and Paul Volcker, as well as Stephen Bechtel Jr. and a number of international Bilderberg names. Obama's future national security advisor, principal protege of top Democrat superclass member Madeleine Albright, was a regular advisor at the FSI in the 2000s.

Cohen was accompanied by Scott Malcomson, a foreign editor of New York Times Magazine from 2004 to 2011, tasked with editing a book Schmidt and Cohen were working on together at the time. Three months later, according to Assange, Malcomson joined the State Department as "the lead speechwriter and principal advisor to [Obama's national security advisor] Susan Rice". In addition, from 2013 to 2015, Malcomson, a CFR member, was employed as director of communications for George Soros' International Crisis Group. After that, he became a fellow of the "liberal CIA" Carnegie Corporation and the liberal superclass-tied New America Foundation, which is where Google CEO Eric Schmidt was a founding director in 1999, two years before his appointment as Google CEO. The Rockefeller Foundation, Eric Schmidt, the Bechtels, Bill Gates, Soros' Open Society Institute, etc. all have been major financiers of the NAF, with Soros' son, Jonathan, becoming of the directors in the late 2000s.

The reader probably gets the point that the individuals knocking on Julian Assange's door in 2011 represented the absolute elite of the elite. Most important though is that Google featured in leaked Stratfor documents of 2011, which Assange made reference to in his Newsweek article. In them, Stratfor's Fred Burton can be found having communicated in an "internal use only" email:

"GOOGLE is getting WH [Obama White House] and State Dept. support & air cover. In reality, they are doing things the CIA cannot. ... Google [has a] covert role in fomenting up-risings, to be blunt. The US Govt can then disavow knowledge and GOOGLE is left holding the shit bag. ...



"Cohen [was/is] working for the State Dept and WH to support Arab regime changes."

ISGP has earlier found the Stratfor leaks useful in relation to information on Russian oligarch and mafia involvement in drug trafficking. The mainstream media has also made reference to its documents regularly. Still, to be thorough, below an extensive screenshot can be found of the relevant Stratfor communications. In them, Google CEO Eric Schmidt and Google's security director Marty Lev are mentioned as the sources for his information.

In his Newsweek article, Assange provided a little addition detail on Jared Cohen's activities:

"[Jared Cohen] befriended Eric Schmidt as they together surveyed the post-occupation wreckage of Baghdad. ... Only a few months before he met with me, Cohen was planning a trip to the edge of Iran in Azerbaijan to "engage the Iranian communities closer to the border," as part of a Google Ideas' project on "repressive societies." ...



"State Department cables released as part of Cablegate reveal that Cohen had been in Afghanistan in 2009, trying to convince the four major Afghan mobile phone companies to move their antennas onto U.S. military bases. In Lebanon, he quietly worked to establish an intellectual and clerical rival to Hezbollah, the "Higher Shia League." And in London he offered Bollywood movie executives funds to insert anti-extremist content into their films, and promised to connect them to related networks in Hollywood."

This information is interesting for a number of reasons:

An article on the Daily Mail about this covert operations connection of Google was absolutely dominated by vicious, anti-Assange trolls. Similarly, this information wasn't greeted with much enthusiasm on Reddit. It appears this information is quite sensitive. And also reveals another problem: the danger of online trolls, especially as AI technology (which Google is an industry leader in) increases in sophistication.

It reinforces/confirms the idea that private foundations and corporations - in this case Google - are used as conduits for government operations that traditionally were reserved for the CIA, or possibly official State Department ambassadors.

We can tie control over these operations back to the top of the superclass, from Madeleine Albright/Susan Rice to George Shultz/Condoleezza Rice and maybe even Zbigniew Brzezinski/Barack Obama. In fact, Google's Eric Schmidt became a Bilderberg steering committee member not long after he became Obama's closest big business ally.

We can see how the operations of Jared Cohen and Google's Eric Schmidt on behalf of the Obama White House strongly overlap with Hollywood, most notably the alliance between John Prendergast, the former National Security Council Africa expert who started working for Soros' Open Society Foundations, and Hollywood stars as George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Matt Damon and Angelina Jolie. If Cohen, on behalf of this Obama-superclass network, basically has been bribing Bollywood into pushing globalist/open border propaganda, that strongly confirms this network's deep involvement in subverting Hollywood as well.

The role of the CIA remains a bit of mystery though. The more you look at it, the more you have to conclude it's little more than a bureaucratic institution that can be used by the liberal superclass - always in control of the highest cabinet positions - in exactly the same manner it can used the State Department, private corporations, the media, or NGOs to run its operations through. It does seem quite obvious, however, though, that the capabilities and the expertise of the CIA are used in some way to infiltrate and control the highest echelons of our society. The details of how this works, for the time being they remain a mystery.

Why you were never a rebel - but here's how you can be

For those who went through some of the organizations and sources in this oversight, it is probably already clear that anyone who ever thought they were a rebel when they:

in reality was an obedient citizen just following a path being created or already laid out by huge financial Eastern Establishment interests. You're were literally copying the opinions of a Laurance Rockefeller, a Dr. Richard Rockefeller, a George Soros, a Jeffrey Bronfman, a Luce, a Mellon, a Pritzker, a Pierre Omidyar, or some major foundation as Ford or Carnegie that has been laundering its funds through the Tides, New World, Lannan, or Rudolf Steiner Foundation. Granted, very publicly pointing to evidence of historical CIA drug trafficking or the problem of the Israel Lobby is pushing the limits of polite debate, but the fact it, it has most certainly been done in the "new left" media - and in more detail you would initially think. I sure was surprised to learn about it.

The good news is that this awareness within the alternative "new left" does not necessarily point to an evil plot. There's literally nothing wrong with any of these things. In fact, they represent areas of progress. Just be aware that there is also evidence that action and debate is being limited and in some cases, especially with regard to conspiracy, is distorted. So never allow yourself to fall into the trap of following authority in these alternative pursuits without asking a few hard questions. You absolutely are allowed to go beyond what has been presented, to set up your own parallel research and activist projects, or to draw your own conclusions. In the age of the internet you can put anything out there that you want and that you believe in.

The engine: key foundations

Annenberg Foundation

Founded in 1993. Based on the fortune of Pilgrims Society member and major superclass member Walter Annenberg. Has been involved in financing the environmental movement and, most importantly maybe, the website FactCheck.org.

Foundation website: annenberg.org/initiatives/education/annenberg-public-policy-center (accessed: January 15,2017): "When the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) was established in 1993, its founders, Ambassadors Walter and Leonore Annenberg, sought to increase the impact of the scholarship produced at Penn's Annenberg School for Communication, the Policy Center's home. ... The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania has developed such award-winning initiatives as FactCheck.org..."

activistfacts.com/foundation/246-AnnenbergFoundation/ (accessed: January 16, 2017): "The Annenberg Foundation was endowed by Walter H. Annenberg in 1989. Annenberg's family business, Triangle Publications, includes both TV Guide and Seventeen magazine, as well as hundreds of radio and television stations across the U.S. ... Donations [total]: Natural Resources Defense Council, $805,000, [by] 2005. Sierra Club, $77,500, [by] 2001. - Tides Foundation & Tides Center, $1,450,000, [by] 2006."

Annenberg also helps finance NPR and Public Radio International (PRI).

September 22, 2008, Newsmax, 'Obama, Voter Fraud & Mortgage Meltdown': "Rathke had been active in Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), known for its violence, and in the domestic terrorist group, the Weathermen, which bombed government offices. William Ayers and his wife Benadine Dohrn, Chicago friends of Obama, also were members of the SDS and the Weathermen. Obama chaired the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, funded by a grant obtained by Ayers [who in December 2016 co-founded the action group FightFascism.org, a frontal assault on the Trump administration and the 58% of all whites who voted for him]."

The Chicago Annenberg Challenge which came to be chaired by Barack Obama and also counted the involvement of Obama's friend Bill Ayers (together they also came to serve on the board of the Woods Fund) was in part financed by the Joyce Foundation, of which Obama was a long-time trustee.

Arca Foundation

Similar to the Tides Foundation, the similarly-oriented Arca Foundation was originally based on the R.J. Reynolds fortune.

arcafoundation.org/history.htm (accessed: November 28, 2015): "But Nancy Susan Reynolds had her own ideas — some decidedly modern ideas for a Southern woman, a wife and a mother of four — about what the world should and could be. She put those ideas into action in 1952, by founding the Nancy Reynolds Bagley Foundation, which later became the Arca Foundation. ... In 1968 Mrs. Reynolds renamed the foundation Arca..."

arcafoundation.org/conference_rm.htm (accessed: November 28, 2015): "As president of the Arca Foundation from 1970-1980, Jane Bagley Lehman [also chair of the Tides Foundation 1976-1988]..."

January 12, 1985, New York Times, 'NANCY SUSAN REYNOLDS': "Nancy Susan Reynolds, the last surviving child of the founder of the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, died today at her home in Greenwich, Conn., the company announced here. She was 74 years old. Mrs. Reynolds was a benefactor to many North Carolina institutions, particularly Wake Forest University. Her father, Richard, died when she was 8. Her mother was Katharine Smith Reynolds. She married Henry Walker Bagley, from whom she was divorced in 1953, and later married Gilbert Verney. They divorced in 1967. Mrs. Reynolds is survived by four children, Jane Bagley Lehman [who helped establish the Tides Foundation], Smith W. Bagley, Susan Bagley Bloom and Ann Bagley Grant. "

April 21, 1988, New York Times, 'Jane Lehman, 55; Active in Philanthropy' (no mention of Tides or Arca foundations): "Jane Bagley Lehman, an investor and businesswoman who was active in philanthropy, died of lung cancer Monday in San Francisco, where she lived. She was 55 years old. Ms. Lehman, a granddaughter of R. J. Reynolds, the tobacco company founder, was born in Greenwich, Conn., and attended the Knox School in Cooperstown, N.Y., and the Carnegie-Mellon Institute. She was the former wife of S. A. Long, the prominent yachtsman, and of Orin Lehman, New York State Commissioner of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. Active in a number of philanthropic organizations, Ms. Lehman served on the board of the Save the Children Federation from 1962 until 1978. In 1976, after moving from New York to California, she helped form the Tides Foundation, which addresses environmental and social concerns, and was its chairwoman for the last 12 years. She was a director of the American Place Theater, the American Symphony Orchestra, public television station KQED in San Francisco and the Experiment in International Living in Vermont."

florycanto.org/filmnight.htm: "June 4 KPFA On the Air (2000, 60 minutes) A lively documentary providing food for thought about the potential for alternative visions of media and their relationships to community. KPFA, sister Pacifica station to our own KPFK, began broadcasting in April 1949, and soon became a beacon of open-ended discourse in the McCarthy period of the 1950s. Included among its guests were Langston Hughes, Dylan Thomas, Allen Ginsberg and Linus Pauling [Rockefeller-funded], along with Caspar Weinberger, Edward Teller, the father of the H-Bomb, and the John Birch Society. The video documents the growth of KPFA from the brainstorm of some WWII pacifists to a rare and dynamic voice for cultural and political pluralism through the 1950s, and as a voice for the social movements of the 1960s. It provides diverse perspectives on the complexities of building a multi-cultural media community. Alice Walker narrates viewers through this lively documentary on the history of this pioneer of listener-sponsored radio." paulingblog.wordpress.com/2008/12/09/pauling-and-the-rockefeller-foundation/: "Pauling received his first grant from the Rockefeller Foundation in 1932 for a program of research in structural chemistry. Shortly thereafter, in the fall of 1933, Pauling applied for and later received a three-year grant from the Foundation to support his experimental researches. ... In 1934 Pauling received more funding from the Rockefeller Foundation, this time in support of his hemoglobin research. ... It is also clear that Pauling was, at least to a degree, shifting his research focus to match the lines of inquiry that the Foundation was interested in funding. In 1986, Pauling would note …I'd had one elementary course in organic chemistry and no biochemistry. Didn't know much about these things. I was getting support from the Rockefeller Foundation. Warren Weaver said to me, "Well it's alright. We've been giving you some money to determine the structure of the sulfide minerals. But the Rockefeller Foundation isn't really interested in the sulfide minerals. We're interested in biological molecules and life." So I said, "Well, I'd like to study the magnetic properties of hemoglobin and see whether the oxygen molecule loses its paramagnetism when it combines with the hemoglobin molecule." So they said, "Alright, we'll give you more money." And so it was, more or less, that Pauling's hemoglobin work received Rockefeller support on the order of $70,000 per year circa 1940. Listen: Pauling discusses the roots of his relationship with the Rockefeller Foundation [audio clip]... Pauling not only sought and gained special assistance from Rockefeller funds, but Rockefeller personnel also contributed to the development of his hemoglobin work throughout the 1930s. Alfred E. Mirsky, a professor in cell biology at the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, was one of the first individuals with whom Pauling discussed potential hemoglobin research. Pauling quickly developed a personal friendship with Mirsky and clearly held his colleague in very high regard as a scientist. In a 1944 letter recommending Mirsky for a position at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, Pauling wrote I do not know any one who is so keenly interested in the development of the field of science involving the applications of chemistry and physics to borderline problems of biology, and especially of genetics, and who has such a penetrating understanding of the work which has been done. I find that every conversation which I have with Dr. Mirsky gives me some valuable idea. He has a masterly ability to coordinate results into a significant whole." Indeed, over the years Pauling gave a number of lectures at the Rockefeller Institute and continued to benefit from a wide array of academic and personal relationships that began with the Foundation. The Foundation also continued to fund Pauling's work well into the 1950s, contributing mightily to the "big science" phenomenon that helped define academic research following World War II. The Rockefeller Foundation was pioneering in its recognition of the importance of supporting interdisciplinary work; in particular, it actively sought to foster research between biology and chemistry. In many ways, Pauling with the prototype scientist that the Foundation was looking to support. Looking back, few can deny the impact that this partnership made on the history of twentieth century science. For more information on Pauling's relationship with the Rockefeller Foundation, see the website It's in the Blood! A Documentary History of Linus Pauling, Hemoglobin, Sickle Cell Anemia. We also strongly recommend the book The Molecular Vision of Life: Caltech, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Rise of the New Biology (1993), written by the late Dr. Lily Kay."



Bauman Foundation

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Founded in 2000 by Bill Gates of Microsoft. $44 billion endowment by December 2014. Bill and Melinda Gates are co-chairs. Anno 2014 Gates had donated $30 billion to the foundation, which is seen as the most generous, right after Warren Buffet, who is a trustee of the foundation. gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/General-Information/Foundation-Factsheet (accessed: February 29, 2016): "- Bill Gates, Co-chair. - Melinda Gates, Co-chair. - William H. Gates Sr., Co-chair. - Sue Desmond-Hellmann, Chief Executive Officer. - Warren Buffett, Trustee." June 26, 2006, NPR, 'Buffett Gift Sends $31 Billion to Gates Foundation'.

Elitist Vartan Gregorian has also been quite involved with the Gates Foundation from the start: June 1997, gatesfoundation.org, 'Bill and Melinda Gates establish library foundation dedicated to bringing internet to libraries': "The Gates Library Foundation... Board members include ... Vartan Gregorian..." April 16, 2000, New York Times, 'How to Give Away $21.8 Billion': "Vartan Gregorian, president of the Carnegie Corporation and a longtime adviser to Gates on the subject of philanthropy..."

The foundation is primarily focused on relieving poverty and sickness in Africa.

tides.org/i-want-to/increase-my-foundations-impact-capacity (accessed: September 3, 2015): "In partnership with institutions like The California Endowment, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, [George Soros'] Open Society Institute, W.K. Kellogg Foundation, [Bill & Melinda] Gates Foundation, Ford Foundation, and many others, we have granted hundreds of millions of dollars."

Warren Buffett is known to have financed and to be an advisory board member of Everytown for Gun Safety, and also to have financed the Washington Monthly magazine.

Bloomberg Philanthropies

Founded in 2004. Endownent of roughly $4.3 billion. Includes the Bloomberg Family Foundation.

The founder and owner is Michael Bloomberg: Mayor of New York City 2002-2013. Democrat pre-2001, Republican 2002-2007 and Independent since 2007. Worked with Bill Clinton on climate change issues and endorsed Hillary Clinton for president in 2016. Member of The Giving Pledge with the Bronfmans, Bill Gates, David Rockefeller, Warren Buffett, Ted Turner and Jeff Skoll. Member and speaker to the CFR. Member Trilateral Commission. Visitor Sun Valley meetings. Involved in the 2015-founded Breakthrough Energy Coalition (BEC) with George Soros and Richard Branson. Trustee World Conservation Society and Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University.

Michael Bloomberg founded Everytown Against Gun Violence with Bill Gates Foundation partner Warren Buffett in 2014. Close ally of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in particular, for example on anti-smoking and contraception issues, as well as the banning of hydrogenated cooking oils (with Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg). In 2011 Bloomberg and George Soros set up Young Men's Initiative to reduce issues with New York City's black and Latino communities.

Carnegie Corporation of New York

Carnegie Institute for Science

Founded in 1895 by Pilgrims Society member Andrew Carnegie.

Leadership has included: Harry F. Osborn | Cleveland Dodge | Robert Bliss | Lindsay Bradford | Vannevar Bush (president) | Walter Gifford | Caryl Haskins | Charles Townes | John Macomber | Walter Page II (trustee 1971-1979) | John Cadwalader | William I. M. Turner, Jr. (vice chair) | William Hewlett (trustee).

Clinton Foundation

Founded in 2001 by Bill Clinton. Heavily politicized. Through 2014 the foundation had raised almost $2 billion from U.S. corporations especially Wall Street; foreign governments and corporations; political donors; and various other moneyed interests.

At this point the annual Clinton Global Initiative is part of the Clinton Foundation.

clintonfoundation.org/about/board-directors (accessed: April 29, 2017): "President Bill Clinton, founder and board chair. Chelsea Clinton, vice chair of the board. ... Cheryl Mills ..."

Anno 2017 Chelsea Clinton is director of InterActiveCorp, a company that controls The Daily Beast, Vimeo, About.com and basically all western online dating apps: OKCupid, Tinder, BlackPeopleMeet, etc. Barry Diller, the former Fox chief and, since 2001, the husband of Diane von Furstenberg, has been the long time chair of InterActiveCorp, with Alexander von Furstenberg, Edgar Bronfman Jr. and Michael Eisner also serving on the board. See the Furstenberg Family Foundation for details.

Daphne Foundation (Disney)

Pictures from the Daphne Foundation's page of grantees: financing street protests everywhere.

Small foundation founded in 1991 by Abigail Disney and her husband. Abigail is the daughter of Roy E. Disney and a granddaughter of Roy O. Disney, the founder of The Walt Disney Company with Abigail's great uncle Walt Disney in 1923. Abigail has a BA from Yale, an MA from Stanford and a Ph.D. from Columbia in English literature. February 13, 2009, PhilanthropyNewsDigest.org, 'Abigail Disney, President, Daphne Foundation': "In 1991, Abigail Disney and her husband, Pierre Hauser, founded the Daphne Foundation — the name is a composite of their initials — to support emerging and grassroots organizations... A grand-niece of Walt Disney..." daphnefoundation.org/about/ (accessed: April 26, 2018): "The Daphne Foundation is directed by Abigail Disney, Pierre Hauser, Leah Doyle, Deborah Howes, Yvonne L. Moore and Ingrid Benedict (director)."

Abigail Disney is a giant feminist, gun-hating, ethnic crime statistics suppressing, white guilt pusher: July 23, 2016 tweet of Abigail Disney (@abigaildisney): ""Donald Trump should not be elected. He should be hospitalized". @GloriaSteinem." October 3, 2017, Abigail Disney (@abigaildisney): "And let's be clear. 3% of Americans [who own almost half of the 300 million guns] is 9 million people. Most of them men. Most of them white." April 26, 2016, Abigail Disney (@abigaildisney) Twitter biography: "Filmmaker. man-loving feminist banshee. All-around nooge for social justice. Self-important but other-important too." April 25, 2018 tweet of Abigail Disney (@abigaildisney): "God. My people are so fucked up. This woman wants me to peel my white skin off." April 26, 2018 tweet of Abigail Disney (@abigaildisney): "This the NFL embracing a racist on the one hand and shunning an activist on the other. The NFL is dying and I’m sad to say I think it deserves to die." April 26, 2018 tweet of Abigail Disney (@abigaildisney): "Hey white people. Does this convince you that you don’t have to use the n-word to be a racist?" April 26, 2018 tweet of Abigail Disney (@abigaildisney): "kanye west just lost 9.2M followers in 7 mins for posting a photo of him wearing trump hat."

The Daphne Foundation is primarily focused on financing Third World immigrant grassroots NGOs: daphnefoundation.org/grantee-list/ (accessed: April 26, 2018; all the photos show black, Asian and Arab immigrant protestors waving banners): "African Communities Together. ... CAAAV Organizing Asian Communities. Communities United for Police Reform. Desis Rising Up and Moving. El Centro Del Inmigrante. ... Rockaway Youth Task Force. Vocal NY."

Abigail Disney is an extreme white guilt promoter:

In 2008, Abigail Disney launched the Peace is Loud, a globalist feminist NGO: peaceisloud.org/about/what-we-do/: "Founded by activist, filmmaker and philanthropist Abigail Disney, Peace is Loud inspires action through media and speaking events that spotlight women leaders on the frontlines of peacebuilding."

Abigail Disney campaigned for higher taxes, alongside George Soros and allies: December 11, 2012, Forbes.com, 'Warren Buffett And George Soros Want Higher Estate Tax Than Obama Proposes': "Warren Buffett, George Soros, President Jimmy Carter, Bill Gates, Sr., and many others have signed a list of notable wealthy individuals who are calling on Congress and the President to raise [the] estate tax... [Others include:] Robert Rubin, former Treasury Secretary and Co-Chairman of Goldman Sachs... Abigail Disney... and Richard Rockefeller, MD, heir to Standard Oil founder John D. Rockefeller." March 21, 2017, 'Disney, Rockefeller, Soros among wealthy New Yorkers asking state to raise their taxes': "Eighty people including George Soros, Steven Rockefeller and Abigail Disney wrote to lawmakers and Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo saying they and other top earners should pay more to support schools, roads..."

Abigail Disney was part of the bizarre cultic NXIVM / Ethical Humanitarian Foundation network of Keith Raniere and the Bronfman sisters.

Doris Duke Charitable Fund

Founded in 1996. Assets of $1.72 billion as of December 31, 2016.

Helps finance National Public Radio, the National Resources Defense Council, the Nature Conservancy with many millions. Universities as Harvard, Yale, Washington, UCLA, Florida and others also receive millions.

Anno 2017, Doris Duke Charitable Trust chairman Peter Nadosy, a graduate of Harvard and Columbia and top executive of Morgan Stanley, also serves as a trustee of the Ford Foundation. In addition, the foundation is linked to Occupy Wall Street's Zuccotti Park. ddcf.org/about-us/board-of-trustees/ (accessed: March 26, 2017): "Peter A. Nadosy, Chair ... Past Board Members: ... John J. Mack [chairman Morgan Stanley] ... Nicholas Scoppetta [New York City Fire Commissioner January 1, 2002 - January 1, 2010, right after 9/11] ... John E. Zuccotti [chair and CEO Brookfield Office Properties; Zuccotti Park, famous for Occupy Wall Street, is named after him] " fordfoundation.org/people/peter-a-nadosy/ (accessed: March 26, 2017): "Peter A. Nadosy, managing partner of East End Advisors, serves on the Ford Foundation Board of Trustees. ... president of Morgan Stanley Asset Management in 1985, and vice chairman in 1995 ... Nadosy spent 27 years at Morgan Stanley. ... Nadosy is board chair of the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation..."



Field Foundation

Founded in New York City in 1940 by Marshall Field III of Chicago (1893-1956), the grandson of a well-known Chicago merchant who founded the famous Marshall Field's department store.

Marshall Field III bio: Born in 1893 in Chicago. Primarily raised in England and educated at Eton College, Cambridge University. Became extremely wealthy after receiving a significant proportion of his grandfather's $75 million (or $118 million) estate in 1905/1906 (age 12-13) when his father committed suicide and his grandfather died. Enjoyed his wealth for the next three decades of his life without much concern for the poor or minorities. Director of the elite Guaranty Trust Company in New York City from at least 1922 to at least 1929 (one source says 1933), alongside Averell Harriman, key Morgan bankers Tomas W. Lamont and John W. Davis, and other top elites of the Pilgrims Society and emerging CFR. Field himself joined the Pilgrims Society no later than 1924 and joined the CFR in 1927. He held membership in both groups until his death in 1956. January 4, 1922, New York Times, p. 33: "A.C. Bedford, Chairman, Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey; ... Marshall Field [III], Trustee, Estate of Marshall Field; Robert W. Goelet ... Eugene G. Grace, Pres. Bethlehem Steel Corp.; Daniel Guggenheim of Guggenheim Brothers; W. Averell Harriman, Chairman, W.A. Harriman & Co., Inc. ... Cornelius F. Kelley, Pres. Anaconda Mining Co.; Thomas W. Lamont, partner of J.P. Morgan & Co. ... Edgar L. Marston of Blair & Co.; Grayson M.-P. Murphy ... Charles A. Peabody, pres. Mutual Life Insurance Co. ... Edward R. Stettinius of J.P. Morgan & Co.; Myron C. Taylor ... George Whitney of J.P. Morgan & Co.; Harry Payne Whitney, banker..." July 9, 1929, New York Times, p. 49: " John W. Davis ... Marshall Field of Field, Glore & Co. ... Robert W. Goelet ... W. Averell Harriman ... Thomas W. Lamont ... Richard B. Mellon, Pres. Mellon National Bank, Pittsburgh; Grayson M.-P. Murphy ... Eugene W. Stetson ... Cornelius Vanderbilt Whitney, banker; George Whitney of J.P. Morgan & Co.; Harry Payne Whitney, banker ... " Member Pilgrims Society from at least 1924 until his death in 1956 - based on historical Pilgrims Society membership lists. Resident member CFR 1927-1956, based on historical CFR membership lists. Marshall Field Jr. certainly was a non-resident member of the CFR anno 1955. Marshall Field's close British friend was one-time Cambridge classmate and later Churchil cabinet member Oliver Lyttelton, the son of Alfred Lyttelton (1857-1913), a Pilgrim who was intimately part of the Cecil Rhodes secret society and subsequent Milner Group, together with Lord Rothschild, Sir Arthur Balfour and other elites. This network is considered the origin of today's corporate suprenational globalist government. 1964, Stephen Becker and Marshall Field, 'Marshall Field III: A Biography', pp. 77, 97, 332, 459: "[Field] and Oliver Lyttelton (a classmate, now Viscount Chandos)... At Cambridge Oliver Lyttelton had wondered what Field would do with himself, and had suggested politics; Field rejected the suggestion immediately, pointing out that American politics was "a dirty business."...

Field's old friend Oliver Lyttelton ... was named Controller of Metals in 1939 ... member of [Churchill's] War Cabinet in 1941, and Minister of Production in 1942. His meetings with Field were infrequent, but the two remained friends. Lyttelton even found the opportunity to strike a glancing blow for Field, at the Rainbow Club in London in 1943. He was with a group of British and American officers; one of the latter offered the old, silly reproach that the British lacked a sense of humor. Lyttelton answered him, "I admit we have nothing as funny as the Chicago Tribune." [The anti-FDR, anti-intervention paper Field set up the Chicago Sun for] Through those men, and through dozens of friends and employees who had gone off, Field was personally tied to the war. But during the war years he remembered peace. ...

Field also spent some time with his old friend Oliver Lyttelton, who was then Secretary of State for the Colonies [from 1951 to 1954] and had his hands full, what with Malaya, the emerging African nations, British Guiana, and particularly, that year, Kenya. Lyttelton thought that Field seemed quite tired." Marshall Field's cousin was the British Ronald Tree, an intimate of Churchill on whose estate the super-elite U.S.-Canadian-British Ditchley Foundation was established in 1958: 1964, Stephen Becker and Marshall Field, 'Marshall Field III: A Biography', pp. 332, 381, 474: "In New York his cousin Ronald Tree was one of those... (Another friend, who also had a cottage there, was Edward M. M. Warburg). Tree shared with Field aspects of life that almost no one else close to him had experienced -- the English background; and their friendship, interrupted by the war, was renewed in their easygoing summertime life at Caumsett [on Long Island]. Field swam, played tennis, rode. ...

Winston Churchill's estate, Chequers, was considered unsafe, a prime target, on weekends of full moon, and on those weekends the Trees extended to the Prime Minister... the hospitality of their own home, Ditchley. ...

In March of 1955 [Field] had taken a vacation in Barbados, where Ronald Tree was living. ... Tree thought his cousin weary, more abstracted than ever." March 31, 1985, New York Times, 'House with Lustrous Past': "Ditchley ... has changed little since it was built in about 1720 [and was inhabited by] the grandson of Charles II and his mistress Barbara Villiers, Duchess of Cleveland. ... In 1933 Ditchley Park was acquired from its last Lee owner, the 17th Viscount Dillon, by Ronald Tree, an heir to the Marshall Field fortune in Chicago. ...

At Ditchley Park [during WWII], Churchill met with his staff and, secretly, with members of the Roosevelt Administration, including W. Averell Harriman and Under Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal. Most importantly, he met with Harry L. Hopkins, Roosevelt's personal envoy, to draft the lend-lease agreements. ...

Ditchley ... now houses a lecture theater and the offices of the [super-elite] Ditchley Foundation. The other, formerly a chapel, is now the living quarters of the foundation director." In the 1940s very close to the Warburg family and seemingly also John McCloy and Dean Acheson - all Pilgrims: 1964, James P. Warburg, 'The Long Road Home: The Autobiography of a Maverick', pp. 65, 218, 226: "Two of my Wall Street friends, Marshall Field and Averell Harriman, had seen and liked the play in rehearsal. ...

In politics as in private life, I felt disconnected and somewhat ... Marshall Field and I had become fast friends back in the ... [He] lived like an English duke on his estate on Long Island [and] had the British aristocrat's sense of 'noblesse oblige' and the appealing, fun-loving quality of a child. ...

When this idea found favor with [Pilgrim and CFR member Dean] Acheson and with [Pilgrim and CFR chair and David Rockefeller mentor] Jack McCloy in the War Department, I arranged with Marshall Field [III] to have myself accredited as a special correspondent for the Chicago Sun Syndicate. Thanks to the arrangements made by Acheson and McCloy, all doors in Germany were opened. General Lucius D. Clay, the United States chief of military government, gave me a thorough briefing on inter-ally relations and ordered his staff to provide whatever available information I might desire. He arranged permission for me to travel where and as I pleased throughout the Western zones of occupation, and placed a jeep at my disposal." Founding partner of Chicago-based investment banking firm Field, Glore & Co. early 1920s-1926. According to EIR (which did an incredibly accurate profile on Marshall Field III in 1983), by the mid 1930s Field was a director of Chicago & Northwestern Railroad, Chicago Union Traction, Rock Island and St. Paul Railroad, and Continental Illinois Bank. Supporter of Mussolini in the 1930s, alongside the usual elite bankers: 2015, John Patrick Diggins, 'Mussolini and Fascism: The View from America', pp. 124-125: "Safely settled [amidst major consternation in New York City upon his 1931 arrival], [Mussolini's] Foreign Minister [Dino Grandi] enjoyed a round of hearty welcomes: a dinner at Columbia University's Casa Italiana where Nicholas Murray Butler [Pilgrims Society president; key representative of the Morgan, Carnegie and Harriman interests] , Marshall Field, and Ambassador de Martino were the main speakers; a White House ball, to which all the leading pro-Fascist Italian-American publishers had been invited; and a luncheon given by [New York Times] publisher Adolph Ochs, who complimented Grandi for supporting the same international policies as did the New York Times (the League of Nations and the World Court, "generous liquidation" of war debts, and disarmament) But the sweet amenities extended by the Establishment did not lessen tension. The Stimson estate, where Grandi resided, was guarded day and night by scores of security police." February 15, 1983, Executive Intelligence Review, "A profile of Chicago's Marshall Field clan': "A year later [in 1932], Field was decorated by the Italian government for his services. Field III also continued the promotion of Nordic race superiority begun by his grandfather, who founded Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History." In line with the Anglo-American establishment, Marshall Field III reversed his position on support for fascism when a peace treaty couldn't be worked out with Hitler due to FDR and British public opinion, and Hitler invaded the West to secure the Atlantic border: dla.library.upenn.edu, 'Fight for Freedom, Inc. Records': "Fight for Freedom, Inc. (FFF), a national citizen's organization established in April 1941, was a leading proponent of full American participation in World War II. [It was] an offshoot of the Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies...

Other key individuals, many of whom sat on the Board of Directors [of FFF], included ... Harvard University president James B. Conant; [OSS founder] Colonel William J. Donovan [Rockefeller Fdn. representative during WWI and for J.P. Morgan in the early 1920s] ... [OSS co-founder and later CIA co-founder] Allen Dulles; Marshall Field [III], philanthropist and publisher of the New York-based evening newspaper PM; publisher Harold Guinzburg; .. and financier James P. Warburg. The FFF headquarters was a hub of activity, and at its peak, FFF maintained an office staff of twenty-five." 1968, Mark Lincoln Chadwin, 'The Hawks of World War II', p. 170: "The [Fight for Freedom] Committee consisted of Mrs. Calvin Coolidge (a Vice-Chairman of the Fight For Freedom); ... Laird Bell, attorney and president of the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations; attorney Henry B. Cabot; ... James B. Conant; William J. Donovan; ... Allen Dulles; Marshall Field [III]; Richard M. Griffith; Harold Guinzburg [publisher and co-founder of Viking Press, president of Viking/Penguin 1975, where he hired Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis; and father of Paris Review editor Thomas Guinzburg] ... Spyros Skouras [president 20th Century-Fox 1942-1962]... Dan Tobin, president of the Teamsters [Union]..." December 30, 1940, Congressional Record (revealing there was some controversy about him at the time, if only from ultraright, isolationist corners): "Members of the Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies are very much interested in companies selling war supplies and materials to the United States and to Great Britain. Many of them are directors and officials in these war-boom companies. ... Marshall Field, very active in financing the war propaganda in this country, has much money invested in ...

Marshall Field, one of the backers to most of the [pro-]war groups and very active for intervention, signer of the telegram, etc., is a director of Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co., with its millions of dollars worth of dollars, and of Marshall Field, also selling the Government goods." Underwent psychoanalysis by Dr. Gregory Zilboorg in 1934 (similar to Ralph Ingersoll and Ernest Hemingway, as well as Edward M.M. Warburg and James P. Warbug), after his second divorce and immediately after the depths of the Great Depression. Reportedly heavily affected by the misery of the working class in this period and emerged as a more caring man. Hence, became a supporter of FDR's New Deal of 1933 and 1935, which gave many basic rights to workers (maximum working hours, minimum wage, a ban on child labor, etc.) Founder of his Field Foundation and Saul Alinsky's Chicago-based Industrial Areas Foundation, both in 1940. Founded the Chicago Sun in 1941 and build a Chicago-based newspaper and book-publishing empire.

Marshall Field III / Field Enterprises (founded in 1944) owned: Picture Magazine (PM) (June 1940-June 1948): Left-leaning, strongly-pro-WWII-intervention magazine b