- Spitfire List - http://spitfirelist.com -

Transcript of Miscellaneous Archive Show M4: “Gloria in Excelsis”

Dave Emory’s entire life­time of work is avail­able on a flash dri­ve that can be obtained HERE [1]. The new dri­ve is a 32-giga­byte dri­ve that is cur­rent as of the pro­grams and arti­cles post­ed by the fall of of 2017. WFMU-FM is pod­cast­ing For The Record–You can sub­scribe to the pod­cast HERE [2].

You can sub­scribe to e‑mail alerts from Spitfirelist.com HERE [3].

You can sub­scribe to RSS feed from Spitfirelist.com HERE [3].

You can sub­scribe to the com­ments made on pro­grams and posts–an excel­lent source of infor­ma­tion in, and of, itself HERE [4]

[5] [6]COMMENT: In FTR #‘s 998, [7] 9 [8]99, 1000 [9], we ana­lyzed aspects of what we termed “weaponized fem­i­nism.” (Note that we use the term “weaponized” to dis­tin­guish our focal point from the gen­er­al social and polit­i­cal phi­los­o­phy of fem­i­nism.)

An inter­est­ing con­sid­er­a­tion in that con­text con­cerns the extent to which the doyenne of Amer­i­can feminism–Gloria Steinem–has man­i­fest­ed weaponized fem­i­nism as an asso­ciate of the CIA. Although Steinem has admit­ted work­ing for the CIA years ago, she claims she sev­ered her con­tacts with the agency decades ago.

There is a con­sid­er­able body of his­tor­i­cal evi­dence that sug­gests that this is not the case. Fur­ther­more, that evi­dence rais­es the impor­tant ques­tion of the extent to which Steinem her­self, is a man­i­fes­ta­tion of “weaponized fem­i­nism?”

When Mis­cel­la­neous Archive Show M4 [10]: Glo­ria in Excel­sis [11]: The CIA, the Wom­en’s Move­ment and the News Media [12] was record­ed, the “air-check” cas­sette deck­’s “record lev­el” was too high, result­ing in dis­tort­ed sound qual­i­ty. Although it is more than thir­ty years old, it does con­tain a con­sid­er­able amount of mate­r­i­al rel­e­vant to Amer­i­ca’s pre­em­i­nent fem­i­nist Glo­ria Steinem. For those who find the audio dis­tor­tion too extreme for con­sump­tion of the infor­ma­tion, we offer this tran­script of the pro­gram.

Exe­cut­ed by the now defunct “Con­spir­a­cy Nation” web­site, it does con­tain some spelling mis­takes, due to pho­net­ic tran­scrip­tion errors. We have cor­rect­ed most of them, but some prob­a­bly remain.

Major points of dis­cus­sion in the program/transcript include:

  1. Steinem’s deep asso­ci­a­tion with CIA’s Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice.
  2. A series of col­lab­o­ra­tive efforts on the part of Steinem, her attor­neys and pow­er­ful cor­po­rate and polit­i­cal asso­ciates to sup­press the Steinem/CIA/Independent Research Ser­vice infor­ma­tion.
  3. Steinem’s pro­found con­nec­tions to the Gra­ham pub­lish­ing empire, itself inex­tri­ca­bly linked to CIA.
  4. Steinem’s 9‑year rela­tion­ship with J. Stan­ley Pot­tinger, appar­ent­ly linked to the Octo­ber Sur­prise, and Jus­tice Depart­ment obfus­ca­tion of the killings of Mar­tin Luther King and Orlan­do Lete­lier. Pot­tinger is friends with George H.W. Bush.
  5. Her links to Eliz­a­beth Forsling Har­ris, who was instru­men­tal in arrang­ing the details for JFK’s motor­cade route in Dal­las.

GLORIA IN EXCELSIS (Tran­script)

Now. The first arti­cle I’m going to be read­ing here comes from Coun­ter­spy mag­a­zine, Vol­ume IV, Num­ber 1. And it was pub­lished in 1980. This is a state­ment by a group of rad­i­cal fem­i­nists who called them­selves “The Red Stock­ings,” who (despite the fact that nei­ther Nip [co-host] nor myself would agree with nor iden­ti­fy with their ide­o­log­i­cal under­pin­nings), they did some excel­lent and read­i­ly ver­i­fi­able research. And that research is “front and cen­ter” in the fol­low­ing let­ter which they mailed to Coun­ter­spy. (By the way, Coun­ter­spy is one of the top pub­li­ca­tions cov­er­ing the activ­i­ties of the U.S. intel­li­gence estab­lish­ment. It’s now been renamed, The Nation­al Reporter.) …the fol­low­ing state­ment from the Red Stock­ings Col­lec­tive (this from Sep­tem­ber 6, 1979). It’s head­lined,

STATEMENT

We feel that we must respond to the lat­est in a series of attempts to sup­press the inquiry into the details and nature of Glo­ria Steinem’s asso­ci­a­tion with the Cen­tral Intel­li­gence Agency. We are alarmed that the most vis­i­ble com­men­tary on these events comes from sev­er­al well-known fig­ures in the fem­i­nist move­ment who not only con­done but endorse this sup­pres­sion.

Because feminism’s appeal and impact spring from a fun­da­men­tal intel­lec­tu­al hon­esty, it is par­tic­u­lar­ly dis­tress­ing that the sup­pres­sion of dis­sent may be seen as some kind of offi­cial fem­i­nist posi­tion.

In 1975, after Red Stock­ings researched Glo­ria Steinem’s affil­i­a­tions and raised ques­tions about her polit­i­cal past, Steinem pub­lished a “state­ment,” in con­nec­tion with her activ­i­ties on behalf of the Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice, a CIA-fund­ed group. Many fem­i­nists found this doc­u­ment nei­ther entire­ly cred­i­ble nor to the point, and they have insist­ed upon seek­ing more enlight­en­ing answers.

[13]Because of the con­scious counter-rev­o­lu­tion­ary role that the CIA has played at home and abroad over the years (to put it mild­ly), it makes sense to expect a par­tic­i­pant in the women’s move­ment, espe­cial­ly one who has come to sym­bol­ize it, to ful­ly dis­cuss her past rela­tion­ship to the CIA. We are still wait­ing to hear Steinem’s opin­ion of the Agency. The last one she gave char­ac­ter­ized the CIA as “lib­er­al” and far-sight­ed. [New York Times, Feb. 21, 1967, accord­ing to Emory.]

The events that prompt­ed us to send out this let­ter include:

Wash­ing­ton Grande Dame and media baroness Kather­ine Graham—the untold sto­ry is what any rad­i­cal could eas­i­ly guess: she fought ruht­less­ly to pro­tect her class inter­ests from threats at home and abroad. In that sense she incar­nat­ed Amer­i­can lib­er­al­ism. The rest, as they say, is pop­py­cock. Now the Wash­ing­ton Post is even more open­ly in the hands of the CIA, the Cap­i­tal­ist Intel­li­gence Agency.

Glo­ria Steinem, Clay Felk­er (most recent­ly pub­lish­er of Esquire), and Ford Foun­da­tion pres­i­dent Franklin Thomas, were among those who threat­ened to sue for libel if Ran­dom House allowed the CIA chap­ters to be pub­lished in the Ran­dom House edi­tion of Red Stock­ings Fem­i­nist Rev­o­lu­tion [14]. At the same time, Newsweek and Wash­ing­ton Post pub­lish­er Kather­ine Gra­ham and Warn­er Com­mu­ni­ca­tions (a major Ms. [mag­a­zine] stock­hold­er) also com­plained. The offend­ing chap­ters were delet­ed. Thus, Steinem and her pow­er­ful sup­port­ers suc­cess­ful­ly used the threat of lit­i­ga­tion to exer­cise pri­or restraint over pub­li­ca­tion.

When Steinem learned that the Vil­lage Voice had assigned jour­nal­ist Nan­cy Bor­man to pre­pare an arti­cle on the cen­sor­ship of Fem­i­nist Rev­o­lu­tion, her attor­neys, Green­baum, Wolf & Ernst, threat­ened suit against the Voice if any men­tion of Steinem’s CIA asso­ci­a­tion appeared in this arti­cle.

After some delay, to allow the Voice‘s legal coun­sel to review the mate­r­i­al, the Voice pub­lished the arti­cle on May 21st, 1979. And, in sub­se­quent issues, sev­er­al let­ter writ­ers respond­ed with attacks on Bor­man and the Voice.

[15]In May of 1979, when Heights and Val­ley News, a New York City neigh­bor­hood paper pub­lished by the Colum­bia Ten­ants’ Union [CTU], began a series on the mate­r­i­al delet­ed from Fem­i­nist Rev­o­lu­tion, Steinem’s attor­neys again threat­ened suit. But instead of threat­en­ing the Colum­bia Ten­ants’ Union cor­po­ra­tion, they sent a let­ter to each of CTU’s 32 board mem­bers. Board mem­bers can­not be indi­vid­u­al­ly sued for a corporation’s acts except in a few instances not rel­e­vant here. But Steinem’s attor­neys stat­ed in their let­ter to the board mem­bers that pub­li­ca­tion of the mate­r­i­al “could sub­ject them to indi­vid­ual lia­bil­i­ty.” Heights and Val­ley News stood up to this attempt at intim­i­da­tion and is con­tin­u­ing the series. All this legal harass­ment was in response not to any actu­al instance of false, mali­cious defama­tion, but to the poten­tial rais­ing of embar­rass­ing ques­tions about some fem­i­nist rela­tions with the pow­er elite. We think that Steinem and her asso­ciates have not made a con­ve­nient case for cut­ting off dis­cus­sion.

And at the bot­tom they have a few ques­tions they ask about the impli­ca­tions of this for the women’s move­ment. And there’s a series of sig­na­to­ries to this par­tic­u­lar state­ment. And the only two names I rec­og­nize here are, a woman by name of Marge Pier­cy who’s a well-known fem­i­nist poet, and also a woman named Louise Bil­lotte, who is a KPFA [radio] staff mem­ber.

There are a num­ber of points to be brought up con­cern­ing this par­tic­u­lar state­ment, here in Coun­ter­spy.

First of all, Steinem, as the arti­cle point­ed out, has nev­er denied her rela­tion­ship to the Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice. How­ev­er, peo­ple who have attempt­ed to high­light the nature of the Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice rela­tion­ship to the CIA and, in turn, Steinem’s rela­tion­ship to Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice, have been threat­ened with lit­i­ga­tion and have had a lot of pres­sure put on them. The pres­sure in this instance not only com­ing from Steinem her­self, but also from a man named Clay Felk­er (whose role in estab­lish­ing Ms. mag­a­zine we’re gonna take a look at), as well as Kather­ine Gra­ham. We’re gonna take a look at Kather­ine Gra­ham, her rela­tion­ship with CIA, and her involve­ment with Ms. [mag­a­zine], in just a cou­ple of min­utes.

Not only was the book Fem­i­nist Rev­o­lu­tion “leaned on” (I guess you’d say) by the Ms. axis, but also the Vil­lage Voice, when writ­ing an arti­cle about the cen­sor­ship of Fem­i­nist Rev­o­lu­tion, also had sim­i­lar pres­sure put on them.

And the inter­est­ing thing is, the attor­neys Green­baum, Wolf & Ernst are a law firm that pro­duced some of the peo­ple help­ing to defend, among oth­ers, Richard Nixon, in the Water­gate case. The fact that the Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice is, for all intents and pur­pos­es, a CIA front, is a mat­ter of record.

If there was noth­ing to be cov­ered up, why all of the pres­sure to cov­er it up? Even Steinem’s own resume will main­tain that she was relat­ed to the Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice.

So keep an eye on these events, and remem­ber the names Clay Felk­er and Kather­ine Gra­ham. We’re going to come back to those a lit­tle bit lat­er.

Con­spir­a­cy Nation — Vol. 9 Num. 29

As far as the Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice itself, there’s quite a few sources that doc­u­ment the con­nec­tions of the Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice to the Cen­tral Intel­li­gence Agency. I’m going to read one of them, very briefly, right now.

The book is called (and it’s pub­lished in hard­cov­er), it’s called The Espi­onage Estab­lish­ment [16], by David Wise and Thomas Ross. Pub­lished in hard­cov­er by Ran­dom House and copy­right­ed 1974. In the [book] there’s a foot­note, in which a num­ber of CIA domes­tic fund­ing con­duits and orga­ni­za­tions fund­ed by the CIA are list­ed. The orga­ni­za­tions range from some which are obvi­ous­ly not CIA fronts but have sim­ply received mon­ey from CIA (such as the Nation­al Coun­cil of Church­es [sic–the World Coun­cil of Church­es was inau­gu­rat­ed by those who were the pre­de­ces­sors to the CIA1 [17], so why not the Nation­al Council?–risephoenix]), to orga­ni­za­tions like Radio Free Europe which were not only begun, basi­cal­ly, by the CIA but for all intents and pur­pos­es are CIA fronts and always have been. And in the list (which is in alpha­bet­i­cal order — this, by the way, on page 155 of The Espi­onage Estab­lish­ment), the Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice is list­ed right there.

Still more infor­ma­tion about the Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice and just exact­ly what sorts of func­tions it per­forms on behalf of CIA is car­ried in an excel­lent arti­cle that appeared in the Berke­ley Barb. (Now again, as I indi­cat­ed, nei­ther Nip [co-host] nor myself endors­es the ide­o­log­i­cal under­pin­nings of a pub­li­ca­tion like the Berke­ley Barb.)

The reportage here is excel­lent and essen­tial, and it rep­re­sents the deep­est inves­ti­ga­tion into the back­ground of Glo­ria Steinem we’ve been able to come up with.

The fol­low­ing arti­cle from the Berke­ley Barb is from the issue of May 30th thru June 5th of 1975. The arti­cle is by Gabriel Schang and it’s titled, “Rad­i­cal Women Won’t Be Ms.-led.” And it con­cerns Steinem and her whole rela­tion with Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice.

Glo­ria Steinem, founder and edi­tor of Ms. mag­a­zine and pres­i­dent of the Ms. Cor­po­ra­tion, has an asso­ci­a­tion span­ning ten years with the CIA which she has mis­rep­re­sent­ed and cov­ered up. To some peo­ple, par­tic­u­lar­ly fem­i­nists, the rela­tion­ship seemed obvi­ous, if neb­u­lous and dif­fi­cult to ver­i­fy. Oth­ers will prob­a­bly remain incred­u­lous until Time mag­a­zine final­ly acknowl­edges it. And then, there will be peo­ple who don’t per­ceive the impli­ca­tions of such a liai­son, and still more who will sim­ply shrug it off.

A group of women tied-in with the ori­gins of the mod­ern Women’s Lib­er­a­tion Move­ment and con­cerned about its future, who call them­selves “Red Stock­ings,” have been able to piece togeth­er enough doc­u­men­ta­tion to con­vinc­ing­ly expose and describe the Ms./Steinem/CIA con­nec­tion. More­over, the Red Stock­ings have close­ly exam­ined the finan­cial back­ing and con­tents of Ms. mag­a­zine and have arrived at the con­clu­sion that the ide­ol­o­gy put forth by Mshas been pos­i­tive­ly harm­ful to the Women’s Move­ment.

The first rev­e­la­tions of Glo­ria Steinem’s rela­tion­ship to the CIA appeared in the New York Times in 1967, in an arti­cle that stat­ed that Steinem had a part in launch­ing a CIA front group which was called the “Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice.” Just pri­or to this expo­sure, Ram­parts mag­a­zine had dis­closed that the orga­ni­za­tion was CIA-fund­ed.

The pur­pose of the Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice seems to have been to sub­vert com­mu­nist-mind­ed youths on an inter­na­tion­al basis. The sup­pos­ed­ly “Inde­pen­dent” Research Ser­vice was, in fact, total­ly depen­dent on the CIA. It is believed to have been formed in response to the Com­mu­nist World Youth fes­ti­vals occur­ring through­out the 1950s and 1960s. These fes­ti­vals were held in com­mu­nist coun­tries until 1959, when the fes­ti­val for that year was sched­uled to take place in Vien­na — neu­tral ter­ri­to­ry dur­ing the Cold War. The State Depart­ment did its best to dis­cour­age Amer­i­can youths from attend­ing. Some did go, though, and in the mean­time the CIA covert­ly arranged for the Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice to orga­nize an anti-com­mu­nist del­e­ga­tion to attend and dis­rupt the fes­ti­vals.

In 1967, Ram­parts exposed the intri­cate laun­der­ing and fun­nel­ing process by which the Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice obtained mon­ey from the CIA. The funds passed through five dif­fer­ent foun­da­tions: the Bor­den Trust, the Price Fund, the Bea­con Fund, the Edsel Fund, and the Kent­field Fund, on its way to the Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice as well as to the Nation­al Stu­dents Asso­ci­a­tion and oth­er groups. The final chan­nel­ing was accom­plished through the well-known Boston law firm of Hale & Dorr. This same law firm pro­duced Joseph Welch as attor­ney for the Army and in its con­fronta­tions with Joseph McCarthy and, more recent­ly, James St. Claire as Nixon’s chief coun­sel dur­ing the Water­gate scan­dals.

 

(Excuse me. I was a lit­tle con­fused at first. The law firm rep­re­sent­ing Glo­ria Steinem in her media pres­sure efforts was not the same one which was involved… [i.e., Green­baum, Wolf & Ernst are appar­ent­ly not Nixon-relat­ed.] I was con­fus­ing that with the law firm involved with set­ting up the Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice in the first place.)

(Of course, it’s still intrigu­ing that this orga­ni­za­tion would be so very much involved with Glo­ria Steinem and con­nect­ing her to peo­ple like James St. Claire — Nixon’s coun­sel dur­ing the Water­gate cri­sis. The Water­gate cri­sis and its con­nec­tions with Kather­ine Gra­ham we’re going to be look­ing at, as I had indi­cat­ed, a lit­tle lat­er.)

No one claims to know why Glo­ria Steinem was cho­sen to found and direct this group. But two ear­ly orga­niz­ers of the Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice stat­ed, in a New Repub­lic arti­cle of May 11th, 1959, that “most of the spon­sors have had con­sid­er­able expe­ri­ence in domes­tic and inter­na­tion­al youth and stu­dent affairs.”

What in Steinem’s past pre­pared her for this sort of work? It is a mat­ter of pub­lic record that Glo­ria M. Steinem grad­u­at­ed from Smith Col­lege and then received the Chester Bowles Asian Fel­low­ship to the Uni­ver­si­ties of New Del­hi and Cal­cut­ta, in India, in 1956 thru 1958. All the Red Stock­ings could glean of her activ­i­ties in India is the alleged pub­li­ca­tion of a book in 1957 called, The Thou­sand Indias. Although the recent edi­tion of Who’s Who in Amer­i­ca lists the title of the book, all attempts by Red Stock­ing to find it in past or cur­rent list­ings of the Cumu­la­tive Book Index list­ings of the New York Pub­lic Library Books in Print and the Library of Con­gress were unsuc­cess­ful. The very exis­tence of Steinem’s book can­not be deter­mined, let alone its con­tents or the iden­ti­ty of the pub­lish­er.

Accord­ing to the recent Red Stock­ing press release, and a Feb­ru­ary 21st, 1967 inter­view in the New York Times, Steinem was described as “a full-time Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice employ­ee in Cam­bridge, Mass­a­chu­setts, from 1959 until after the Helsin­ki Youth Fes­ti­val in 1962.” Under media pres­sure, Steinem could not dis­avow her CIA asso­ci­a­tion. But she gave a dis­tort­ed view of her activ­i­ties at the fes­ti­vals. Steinem claims all the group did at the two fes­ti­vals was estab­lish a news­pa­per, a news bureau, cul­tur­al exhibits, and jazz clubs. The groups most impor­tant work, she said, was con­vinc­ing youths from Asia, Africa, and Latin Amer­i­ca that there were some Amer­i­cans who under­stood and cared about their sit­u­a­tion. Steinem empha­sized, “I was nev­er asked to report on oth­er Amer­i­cans or assess for­eign nation­als I had met.”

Con­spir­a­cy Nation — Vol. 9 Num. 30
CN tran­script of remarks by west coast researcher Dave Emory. …con­tin­ued

The Red Stock­ings charge that this state­ment is an alarm­ing lie. In a “Report on the Vien­na Youth Fes­ti­val” print­ed with Steinem’s name on it as direc­tor of the Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice, there are 13 pages devot­ed exclu­sive­ly to biogra­phies, polit­i­cal affil­i­a­tions, and even some super­fi­cial analy­ses of per­sons from all coun­tries par­tic­i­pat­ing in the fes­ti­val. Youths were mon­i­tored in much the same way at the 1962 World Youth Fes­ti­val in Helsin­ki. In addi­tion to the news and cul­tur­al events put on by the Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice, the Helsin­ki fes­ti­val was marked by four nights of “spon­ta­neous” riot­ing against the fes­ti­val dur­ing which 40 peo­ple were arrest­ed. It was report­ed by Newsweek in August 1962 that “Prav­da, of course, blamed the dis­tur­bances on well-financed CIA and FBI agents.”

(Inter­rupt­ing briefly. Of course remem­ber that Newsweek is pub­lished by Kather­ine Gra­ham. We’re going to be com­ing to *her* role in set­ting up Ms. [mag­a­zine] in just a minute.)

This is Glo­ria Steinem’s back­ground from the late 1950s and ear­ly 1960s. She func­tioned as a secret rep­re­sen­ta­tive of the Amer­i­can gov­ern­ment abroad. At least, she was rep­re­sent­ing cer­tain Amer­i­can inter­ests, and her activ­i­ties in the Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice involved her inex­tri­ca­bly with the U.S. domes­tic polit­i­cal intel­li­gence net­work.

Anoth­er fact exhumed by the Red Stock­ings is the group’s [Inde­pen­dent Research Service’s] pub­li­ca­tion of a pam­phlet in 1959 called, “A Review of Negro Seg­re­ga­tion in the Unit­ed States.” Steinem’s name is list­ed on the inside cov­er, this time as co-direc­tor of the Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice. The pam­phlet focuss­es on the sup­posed advances made by black peo­ple in the U.S. For exam­ple: “Beyond the noisy clam­or of those who would obstruct jus­tice and fair play, no alert observ­er can be unaware of the con­cert­ed effort to rule out seg­re­ga­tion from every aspect of Amer­i­can life.” The rea­son some dis­crim­i­na­tion does still occur, accord­ing to the research group, is because “it is also self-per­pet­u­at­ing, in that the reject­ed group, through con­tin­ued depri­va­tion, is hard­ened in the very short­com­ings, real or imag­i­nary, that are giv­en as the rea­sons for the dis­crim­i­na­tion in the first place.” In oth­er words, the oppres­sion of blacks con­tin­ues not because of white, rul­ing-class inter­ests, but because black peo­ple actu­al­ly have become infe­ri­or. [CN: Here Red Stock­ing is para­phras­ing how they see the Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice pamphlet’s argu­ment.]

The Red Stocking’s analy­sis equates this denial of black oppres­sion with Ms. magazine’s ratio­nal­iza­tion to explain the pro­longed sub­ju­ga­tion of women: both blacks and women have sup­pos­ed­ly become apa­thet­ic and defi­cient.

By 1967, the Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice was declared “large­ly inac­tive” by the New York Times. Steinem, how­ev­er, was still a direc­tor in 1968 when Ram­parts [mag­a­zine] broke anoth­er sto­ry. This time they dis­closed that the CIA had plans of their own for anoth­er World Youth Fes­ti­val to be held in Sofia, Bul­gar­ia. A scan­dal involv­ing some con­fi­den­tial let­ters impli­cat­ing the CIA, which found their way into print before the fes­ti­val, had the effect of cur­tail­ing the CIA’s plans for youths in Sofia.

It was dur­ing the fol­low­ing year, 1969–70, that Glo­ria Steinem first began pub­licly iden­ti­fy­ing her­self with the Women’s Move­ment. Around this same time, Red Stock­ing researchers not­ed there was a change in the bio­graph­i­cal infor­ma­tion list­ed about Steinem in Who’s Who. Report­ed­ly, Who’s Who sends data sheets to their sub­jects request­ing them to fur­nish the details. The 1968 and ’69 edi­tion was the first issue ever men­tion­ing Steinem, and at the time she was list­ed as “Direc­tor, edu­ca­tion­al foun­da­tion, Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice, Cam­bridge, Massachusetts/New York City, 1959–62. Now mem­ber Board of Direc­tors, Wash­ing­ton.” By the 1970 edi­tion of Who’s Who, this entry was short­ened to “Direc­tor, edu­ca­tion­al foun­da­tion, 1959–60.” No men­tion of her posi­tion in Wash­ing­ton on the Board of Direc­tors appears, and she abbre­vi­at­ed her term of employ­ment with the Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice to one year. The cen­sored ver­sion appears in each suc­ces­sive edi­tion of Who’s Who.

There does seem to be an attempt on Steinem’s part to mis­lead Ms. read­ers and con­ceal parts of her past. For instance, her bio-blurb in June 1973 Ms. is even vaguer: “Glo­ria Steinem has been a free-lance writer all her pro­fes­sion­al life. Ms. mag­a­zine is her first full-time, salaried job.”

(Obvi­ous­ly, that is not the case.)

Then there is Glo­ria Steinem’s mys­te­ri­ous­ly swift rise to nation­al promi­nence so soon after the 1967 expo­sures. It is a com­mon com­plaint among ex-CIA agents that past involve­ment with the Agency often impedes their abil­i­ty to find oth­er forms of employ­ment. This was not the case for Steinem. Accord­ing to Red Stock­ing, “her career sky­rock­et­ed after the 1967 expo­sures. Much of the cred­it for this must go to Clay Felk­er, pub­lish­er of New York Mag­a­zine. Recent­ly in the news for his acqui­si­tion of the Vil­lage Voice, Felk­er imme­di­ate­ly fired its two remain­ing founders from their jobs as pub­lish­er and edi­tor. Felk­er was Steinem’s edi­tor at Esquire [mag­a­zine] where her first free-lance pieces were pub­lished. He hired her as con­tribut­ing edi­tor to New York Mag­a­zine in 1968 and booked pub­lic­i­ty spots for her on radio and tv talk shows. Felk­er put up the mon­ey for the pre­view issue of Ms. in Jan­u­ary of 1972, a large part of which appeared as a sup­ple­ment in the 1971 year-end issue of New York Mag­a­zine. In effect, it was Felk­er who made Steinem famous by giv­ing her a plat­form from which to estab­lish her Women’s Lib­er­a­tion cre­den­tials.

 

These facts are all part of the pub­lic record. What has not been wide­ly known up to this time are the ear­li­er polit­i­cal roots of the Steinem/Felker col­lab­o­ra­tion. Felk­er was with Steinem at the Helsin­ki Youth Fes­ti­val edit­ing the Eng­lish lan­guage news­pa­per put out by the CIA-financed del­e­ga­tion.

In addi­tion to Steinem’s ini­tial boost from Clay Felk­er, the Red Stock­ings were able to deter­mine two oth­er major sources of funds for the then fledg­ling Ms. mag­a­zine. One resource was Kather­ine Gra­ham, own­er and pub­lish­er of the Wash­ing­ton Post and Newsweek. She bought $20,000 worth of stock before the first issue of Ms. was ever pub­lished. Accord­ing to “per­fect Ms. ide­ol­o­gy,” Gra­ham was recent­ly fea­tured on the magazine’s cov­er, depict­ed by the head­line as “The Most Pow­er­ful Woman in Amer­i­ca.”

(That, by the way, from the Ms. issue of Octo­ber 1974.)

It should be not­ed in con­junc­tion to this fact that Newsweek became the most enthu­si­as­tic, mass-cir­cu­la­tion mag­a­zine pro­mot­ing the Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice and lat­er, Glo­ria Steinem as an indi­vid­ual. (See ear­ly arti­cles of 5/10/65 and cov­er sto­ry of 8/16/71.)

The sec­ond major mon­ey source for Ms. was Warn­er Com­mu­ni­ca­tions, Inc. They pur­chased $1 mil­lion worth of Ms. stock after the pre­view issue appeared. Warn­ers alleged­ly put up near­ly all the mon­ey and only took 25 per­cent of the actu­al stock hold­ings. Even the Ms. edi­tors admit­ted that this was a tri­fle odd: “We are espe­cial­ly impressed that they took the unusu­al posi­tion of becom­ing a major investor but minor­i­ty stock­hold­er, thus pro­vid­ing all the mon­ey with­out demand­ing the deci­sion vote in return.”

(That from the Ms. Read­er, page 226.) (Skip­ping down in the arti­cle…..)

The ad poli­cies of Ms. are an equal­ly impor­tant indi­ca­tor of the magazine’s finan­cial and polit­i­cal back­ing, espe­cial­ly in view of the fre­quent­ly stat­ed Ms. claims of extreme selec­tiv­i­ty regard­ing which ads they will accept. This stance makes any ad they choose tan­ta­mount to an endorse­ment. Bla­tant­ly sex­ist ads are most often reject­ed, along with ads for cos­met­ic and fash­ion prod­ucts. How­ev­er Ms. seems to have no moral prob­lem accept­ing pub­lic rela­tions and job recruit­ment ads for large cor­po­ra­tions. IT&T is one of the most reg­u­lar adver­tis­ers in Ms., along with non-prod­uct ads from Ortho Phar­ma­ceu­ti­cals, Exxon Oil, Chem­i­cal Bank, Bell Tele­phone, Singer Aero­space, Shear­son-Ham­mel stock­bro­kers, Gulf & West­ern, and Mer­rill-Lynch stock­bro­kers.

In their spe­cial “Human Devel­op­ments” sec­tion each month, Ms. runs a series of adver­tise­ments for careers in com­pa­nies like these.

A let­ter in Sep­tem­ber of 1973 from Amy Sverd­low (sp?) of Women’s Strike for Peace ques­tioned what the recruit­ing of women for IT&T had in com­mon with human devel­op­ment: “Let’s have a Ms. sto­ry on all IT&T activ­i­ties around the world. Then, let the read­er decide what tal­ent­ed women will find at IT&T head­quar­ters,” she sub­mit­ted. Ms. edi­tors replied that in light of all the unem­ployed women and women on wel­fare that they could not be too selec­tive about their job ads. As if wel­fare moth­ers are all head­ed toward IT&T careers! There is much con­tro­ver­sy over whether Ms. mag­a­zine is a com­mer­cial or a polit­i­cal enter­prise. Ele­ments of both seem to exist as ingre­di­ents of the Ms. ide­o­log­i­cal pack­age.

Con­spir­a­cy Nation — Vol. 9 Num. 31
CN tran­script of remarks by west coast researcher Dave Emory….continued

Recent­ly, in a tele­vi­sion appear­ance, Pat Car­bine, now pub­lish­er of Ms. [mag­a­zine] and for­mer­ly edi­tor of McCalls [mag­a­zine] in 1971 when that mag­a­zine named Glo­ria Steinem “Woman of the Year,” declared that the Women’s Move­ment was cur­rent­ly in “Phase II.” What that means here (the Red Stock­ings go on to explain), “rad­i­cals were nec­es­sary for get­ting the thing start­ed,” she con­ced­ed, “but the ‘mod­er­ates’ [bour­geois fem­i­nists] were now in con­trol.”

(And skip­ping down still fur­ther, the arti­cle clos­es here with an inter­est­ing lit­tle blurb.)

Do not for­get that Glo­ria Steinem dat­ed Hen­ry Kissinger at one time. And think about this: “There is still the assump­tion that a woman is not a com­plete human being by her­self. We have to con­sid­er the ways in which we are ‘man junkies.’”

(That from Glo­ria Steinem in a New York Times inter­view of August 11, 1974.)

Well the Kissinger asso­ci­a­tion is not nec­es­sar­i­ly very sig­nif­i­cant at all [sic! risephoeinx]. How­ev­er we *are* going to talk about a man that she’s been with for a very long time who appears to be a very insid­i­ous indi­vid­ual indeed.

Per­haps none of the things in any of the mate­r­i­al that we’re gonna present here, tak­en by them­selves, would be too con­clu­sive. How­ev­er the inter­sec­tion of all of them is very intrigu­ing indeed.

Now review­ing some of the key points of this Berke­ley Barb arti­cle: The Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice, found­ed to a con­sid­er­able extent by Glo­ria Steinem and co-direct­ed by her for quite some time, was involved with basi­cal­ly break­ing up social­ist youth con­fer­ences and dis­rupt­ing them abroad, as well as report­ing on the affil­i­a­tions of some of the peo­ple involved. That is obvi­ous­ly the kind of activ­i­ty CIA does engage in. And one of the most inter­est­ing things is the role of Clay Felk­er in boost­ing Steinem’s career and help­ing to get Ms. start­ed, because Felk­er was an asso­ciate of Steinem’s in the Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice. Kather­ine Gra­ham here played a key role in launch­ing Ms., and then a sort of sym­bi­ot­ic rela­tion­ship between Ms. [mag­a­zine] and Steinem and Newsweek fol­lowed from that.

We’re gonna take a look at Kather­ine Gra­ham — her and the Wash­ing­ton Post’s long-stand­ing affil­i­a­tion with CIA as well as role in Water­gate — a lit­tle lat­er in the broad­cast.

It’s also worth not­ing that (as the arti­cle here points out) some cor­po­ra­tions which have sort of dubi­ous poli­cies, at least abroad, have been very promi­nent Ms. adver­tis­ers. I think peo­ple who would like to find out more about IT&T should take a look at IT&T’s role in the Chilean coup of 1973. And then exam­ine some of the Amnesty Inter­na­tion­al reports on what hap­pened to women polit­i­cal pris­on­ers under Pinochet’s regime. One of the most grotesque things that I recall read­ing in the Amnesty Inter­na­tion­al reports about the polit­i­cal repres­sion and tor­ture under Pinochet imme­di­ate­ly after the over­throw of Sal­vador Allende in Chile, was that female polit­i­cal pris­on­ers were often sub­ject­ed to tor­ture by spe­cial­ly trained dogs who would first rape them, and then sex­u­al­ly muti­late them. Although Ms. [mag­a­zine] does not appear to have too much hes­i­ta­tion about run­ning ads by an orga­ni­za­tion that would help pre­cip­i­tate that kind of activ­i­ty, I sus­pect that if Glo­ria Steinem were tied down onto a Chilean tor­ture table get­ting the “once over” from “Fido,” I expect her atti­tude would be some­what less cir­cum­spect than it was under the cir­cum­stances.

And last, but cer­tain­ly not least, it’s inter­est­ing to note that she dat­ed Hen­ry Kissinger. Of course Kissinger was very much involved in set­ting up that very same coup, as was Richard Helms (part of the Wash­ing­ton Post orbit.) We’re going to take a look at anoth­er inter­est­ing fel­low, though, that Glo­ria Steinem dat­ed. Again: one doesn’t want to damn peo­ple by asso­ci­a­tion. But when you’re exam­in­ing intel­li­gence con­nec­tions, the peo­ple one asso­ciates with inti­mate­ly and over a long peri­od of time are one of the indi­ca­tors of where one’s real sym­pa­thies lie.

We’re now going to play a short sec­tion of the “One Step Beyond” show from June 17th, 1984. You’re going to hear some mate­r­i­al here from Newsweek mag­a­zine, as well as some mate­r­i­al from the New York Times. And it’s going to be talk­ing about Glo­ria Steinem’s para­mour for the past, what… It was nine years in ’84. I don’t know whether they’re still togeth­er, but that’s a long time to be with any­body in terms of a dat­ing rela­tion­ship. Glo­ria Steinem’s rela­tion­ship with a man named J. Stan­ley Pot­tinger, who J. Stan­ley Pot­tinger is, some of the things he has been involved in, is the next thing we’re going to take up in rela­tion to Glo­ria Steinem and the whole Ms. axis.

Play­ing now from “One Step Beyond,” June 17th, 1984.

An inter­est­ing bit of infor­ma­tion here con­cern­ing Glo­ria Steinem. And again: this on the occa­sion of her 50th birth­day. This is from Newsweek, the issue of June 4th, 1984. There’s an arti­cle on Glo­ria Steinem’s 50th birth­day. It’s very short. It’s enti­tled, “Steinem at 50: Glo­ria in Excel­sis.” (And I’m only going to read you one sen­tence of this arti­cle.)

“In pre­vi­ous incar­na­tions, Steinem dat­ed Mike Nichols, Rafer John­son, and oth­er nota­bles. For the past nine years she has been roman­ti­cal­ly involved with Wash­ing­ton attor­ney Stan­ley Pot­tinger, a Repub­li­can and for­mer Assis­tant Attor­ney Gen­er­al for Civ­il Rights.”

But he was Assis­tant Attor­ney Gen­er­al for Civ­il Rights under the Nixon/Ford admin­is­tra­tion, from 1973 until 1977. You’ll all recall what Nixon’s Jus­tice Depart­ment was like: both Mr. Klein­deist and John Mitchell were indict­ed — Mitchell con­vict­ed and Klein­deist even­tu­al­ly… I don’t know whether he was con­vict­ed and received a sus­pend­ed sen­tence, or whether he even­tu­al­ly was acquit­ted. But half the Nixon Jus­tice Depart­ment wound up being indict­ed on one charge or anoth­er, many of them acquit­ted, most in con­nec­tion with the Water­gate affair. They also presided over COINTELPRO and a num­ber of oth­er inter­est­ing things. Sure­ly the Nixon admin­is­tra­tion has nev­er been regard­ed as a great cham­pi­on of civ­il rights. And a woman like Glo­ria Steinem, who is at least nom­i­nal­ly aligned with a civ­il rights move­ment, the fem­i­nist move­ment… Well, her asso­ci­a­tion, her 9‑year roman­tic involve­ment with Mr. Pot­tinger, is real­ly intrigu­ing.

Now those of you who lis­ten to Mae Brussell’s “World Watch­er” series will recall Mae refer­ring very briefly to Mr. Pottinger’s [alleged] involve­ment in an arms smug­gling scam. (Research cred­it for the fol­low­ing arti­cle, again, goes to Mr. Ted Ruben­stein.)

(By the way, that Newsweek arti­cle, if you’d like to look it up, is from June 4th, 1984.)

Now, con­cern­ing Mr. Pot­tinger and his alleged involve­ment in an arms smug­gling scam, the fol­low­ing arti­cle (research cred­it goes to Ted Ruben­stein)… This is from the New York Times of June 3rd, 1984. This is an arti­cle by Sol­wyn Rabb, head­lined “Iran­ian is Sought in Inquiry on Arms.” Sub­ti­tled: “Banker Want­ed in Smug­gling of Pro­hib­it­ed Equip­ment.”

“An Iran­ian banker in New York City who offered to help seek the release of the Amer­i­can hostages in Iran in 1980 is under inves­ti­ga­tion for lead­ing a group that pur­port­ed­ly smug­gled banned mil­i­tary equip­ment into Iran, accord­ing to fed­er­al author­i­ties. The inves­ti­ga­tion, which began four years ago, result­ed in the arrests in New York last month of the broth­er of the banker and of a Hunt­ing­ton, Long Island busi­ness­man on smug­gling charges. Accord­ing to fed­er­al offi­cials, a for­mer Unit­ed States Assis­tant Attor­ney Gen­er­al, J. Stan­ley Pot­tinger, is also under inves­ti­ga­tion. The 44-year-old Mr. Pot­tinger, who was in charge of the Civ­il Rights Divi­sion in the Jus­tice Depart­ment from 1973 to 1977, recent­ly tes­ti­fied before the fed­er­al grand jury in Man­hat­tan inves­ti­gat­ing the case. He did not return tele­phone calls left at his Man­hat­tan office or his home.”

Con­spir­a­cy Nation — Vol. 9 Num. 33
CN tran­script of remarks by west coast researcher Dave Emory….continued

So, again, he [Pot­tinger] is being inves­ti­gat­ed in con­nec­tion with… That is to say, J. Stan­ley Pot­tinger, long­time para­mour of Glo­ria Steinem (9 years, to be exact), is being inves­ti­gat­ed in con­nec­tion with an arms smug­gling case, which in turn is con­nect­ed with a pos­si­ble attempt to seek the release of the Amer­i­can hostages in Iran in 1980.

It cer­tain­ly isn’t con­clu­sive, obvi­ous­ly, because, first of all, Pottinger’s only being inves­ti­gat­ed in con­nec­tion with the case. But that his name should turn up at all… And I under­stand from broad­cast news reports on the sub­ject (there haven’t been many in print), appar­ent­ly his voice was on wire­taps of the Hashemi’s, the Ira­ni­ans involved in this arms smug­gling scam and also the attempt to obtain the release of the hostages from Iran.

Well, of course, arms smug­gling is a major focus of intel­li­gence activ­i­ty. And Iran, of course, has also been a major focus of intel­li­gence activ­i­ty for many years. And among the many peo­ple who crop up in con­nec­tion with attempts to obtain the release of the Amer­i­can hostages, Frank Turpel(sp?) and for­mer con­gress­man John Jen­rette (sp?), who went out in the ABSCAM con­vic­tions, were among the many names that crop up in con­nec­tion with var­i­ous attempts to win the release of the hostages.

And of course that whole cri­sis, the Iran­ian hostage cri­sis, in many ways is viewed by many peo­ple as hav­ing brought Pres­i­dent Rea­gan into pow­er.

So, again, we have Glo­ria Steinem, asso­ci­at­ed with the Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice, a doc­u­ment­ed CIA domes­tic fund­ing con­duit. We have her mak­ing state­ments about the “fact” that the CIA is a lib­er­al and far-sight­ed orga­ni­za­tion. And we have her attempts, through attor­neys and major stock­hold­ers in Ms. [mag­a­zine], to attempt to sup­press the infor­ma­tion con­cern­ing her affil­i­a­tion with Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice. In addi­tion, she’s 9‑years-involved with one of the Nixon/Ford administration’s Assis­tant Attor­neys Gen­er­al, this one in charge of civ­il rights, whose name crops up in con­nec­tion with a major arms smug­gling scam. So, noth­ing con­clu­sive, but very inter­est­ing indeed.

That con­cludes the tape seg­ment.

Now one of the things that’s intrigu­ing about Steinem’s asso­ci­a­tion with Pot­tinger con­cerns the fact that Pot­tinger was not only pos­si­bly involved in an arms smug­gling scheme to Iran. What is very intrigu­ing is the fact that J. Stan­ley Pot­tinger was involved, while work­ing for the Nixon/Ford Jus­tice Depart­ment, not only in help­ing to block the inves­ti­ga­tion into the assas­si­na­tion of Mar­tin Luther King, but also in oper­at­ing in con­nec­tion with for­mer Direc­tor of Cen­tral Intel­li­gence and cur­rent Vice-Pres­i­dent of the Unit­ed States [1981–89] George Bush in cov­er­ing up the assas­si­na­tion of Orlan­do Lete­lier, a dis­si­dent Chilean diplo­mat who was blown up (as many of you, I’m sure, here know) in the mid­dle of Wash­ing­ton, DC. Although U.S. intel­li­gence has dis­claimed any involve­ment in that, that claim has been destroyed by a num­ber of dif­fer­ent books. One of those is an excel­lent book we’ve used before on this pro­gram. It’s called Death In Wash­ing­ton [18], co-authored by Don­ald Freed and Fred Lan­dis. It was pub­lished in hard­cov­er by Lawrence Hill & Co. and it was copy­right­ed 1980.

And of J. Stan­ley Pottinger’s role in block­ing the inves­ti­ga­tion of Mar­tin Luther King [assas­si­na­tion], when it began to lead in the direc­tion of the FBI, Freed and Lan­dis write as fol­lows in Death In Wash­ing­ton:

At the Depart­ment of Jus­tice, J. Stan­ley Pot­tinger and Michael Sha­heen (sp?) were work­ing over­time to blunt the charge that the Fed­er­al Bureau of Inves­ti­ga­tion might have mur­dered Dr. King and cer­tain­ly had not inves­ti­gat­ed the crime.

Pot­tinger was not only involved in blunt­ing the inves­ti­ga­tion into the assas­si­na­tion of Mar­tin Luther King, but he also was involved in a milieu that helped block the inves­ti­ga­tion, not only block the inves­ti­ga­tion into the assas­si­na­tion of Orlan­do Lete­lier, but to deflect it into the direc­tion of the Chilean left.

Some of the peo­ple involved in not only set­ting up the [Lete­lier] assas­si­na­tion but cov­er­ing it up are names that we’ve used here before. The two names here, Frank Ter­pil and Edwin Wil­son, are going to be “front and cen­ter” here. Specif­i­cal­ly, Frank Ter­pil sup­pos­ed­ly met with (accord­ing to this account here) James Buck­ley, in New York City, short­ly before the Lete­lier assas­si­na­tion. And accord­ing to Lan­dis and Freed, some of the explo­sives used in the Lete­lier assas­si­na­tion were pro­vid­ed by Edwin Wil­son and Frank Ter­pil. Of course, we’ve looked at the fact that Ter­pil and Wil­son were by no means ex-CIA agents when they worked with Moam­mar Khaddafi in Libya. And cer­tain­ly, since this took place before that, they were not ex-CIA agents at this time too.

So what we have is, Ter­pil and Wil­son, George Bush, and J. Stan­ley Pot­tinger, as well as James Buck­ley (and lat­er, William F. Buck­ley), work­ing not only to assas­si­nate Orlan­do Lete­lier, but to cov­er it up and deflect blame for the crime in the direc­tion of the Chilean left.

Again, read­ing from Death In Wash­ing­ton by Lan­dis and Freed. (The “Town­ley” referred to here was Michael Ver­non Town­ley, the man actu­al­ly con­vict­ed, along with a cou­ple of anti-Cas­tro Cubans, in per­form­ing the Lete­lier assas­si­na­tion.)

Town­ley met with Frank Ter­pil one week before the Lete­lier mur­der, on the same day that he met with Sen­a­tor James Buck­ley and aides in New York City. The explo­sives, sent into the Unit­ed States on Chilean air­lines, were to replace explo­sives sup­plied by Edwin Wil­son, accord­ing to a source close to the office of U.S. Attor­ney Lawrence Bar­cel­la, Jr. Bar­cel­la had worked with Eugene Prop­per on the Letelier/Moffit case.

Each incre­ment of Amer­i­can involve­ment in the crime leads to the thresh­old ques­tion: What did George Bush and the CIA know, and when did they know it? On Octo­ber 4th, 1976, Direc­tor of Cen­tral Intel­li­gence Bush met with Eugene Prop­per and J. Stan­ley Pot­tinger, and promised coop­er­a­tion in exchange for FBI cau­tion in any nation­al secu­ri­ty mat­ters. Then, on Novem­ber 8th, Bush flew to Mia­mi on the pre­text of “a walk­ing tour of Lit­tle Havana.” Actu­al­ly, he met with FBI Spe­cial Agent in Charge Julius Mat­son (sp?) and the chief of the Anti-Cas­tro Ter­ror­ism Squad. Accord­ing to a source close to the meet­ing, Bush warned the FBI against allow­ing the inves­ti­ga­tion to go any fur­ther than the low­est-lev­el Cubans. This was a secret meet­ing, but pub­licly, Bush was sell­ing head­lines like, “Left Is Also Sus­pect In Slay­ing Of Lete­lier,” to Jere­mi­ah O’Leary and the Wash­ing­ton Star [news­pa­per].

And just the week before, on Novem­ber 1st, the Wash­ing­ton Post had quot­ed both Bush and Kissinger to the effect that the [Chilean] Jun­ta was not involved.

This is obstruc­tion of jus­tice, and mis­pri­sion of a felony at the least. Why would the Direc­tor of the Amer­i­can Cen­tral Intel­li­gence Agency vio­late the law in the inter­ests of the Chilean Jun­ta?

Well I think that the rea­sons are fair­ly obvi­ous, because of the involve­ment of the CIA in installing and pre­serv­ing that very Jun­ta are a mat­ter of pub­lic record.

So again, Michael Ver­non Town­ley coop­er­at­ing not only with Frank Ter­pil and Edwin Wil­son on the actu­al assas­si­na­tion of Orlan­do Lete­lier, but inter­est­ing­ly enough, he meets with Sen­a­tor James Buck­ley on the same day he meets with Frank Turpel. And both the Buck­leys were involved in help­ing to cir­cu­late the myth that the Chilean left had been involved in killing Orlan­do Lete­lier.

We’re talk­ing about Glo­ria Steinem, her asso­ci­a­tion with the Cen­tral Intel­li­gence Agency, with Ms. mag­a­zine (of course), with peo­ple like Kather­ine Gra­ham, with men like J. Stan­ley Pot­tinger. We just took a look at Pot­tinger’s pos­si­ble role in an arms smug­gling scam and his def­i­nite role in cov­er­ing up the assas­si­na­tions of Orlan­do Lete­lier and Mar­tin Luther King.

Now we’re going to take a look at the inter­est­ing “extra-cur­ric­u­lar activ­i­ties,” I guess you could say, of the woman who was the *first* pub­lish­er of Ms. mag­a­zine. Some­time in the ear­ly ’70s, a woman by the name of Pat Car­bine (“Car­bine,” sort of iron­ic in light of Pot­tinger’s role in these assas­si­na­tions) was, she became the pub­lish­er of Ms. Before that, the pub­lish­er of Ms. mag­a­zine was a woman named Eliz­a­beth Forsling Har­ris (sp?). And it appears that Eliz­a­beth Forsling Har­ris played a pri­ma­ry role in the assas­si­na­tion of John Kennedy.

Read­ing from Vol­ume IV of one of the best series of books on the Kennedy assas­si­na­tion... It’s called, For­give My Grief[1] [19]. It occurs in 4 vol­umes. It’s authored by Penn Jones, Jr.

Now Penn is the edi­tor of the Mid­loth­i­an Mir­ror (Mid­loth­i­an is a sub­urb of Dal­las), and he’s one of the fore­most researchers, and a man who began inves­ti­gat­ing the Kennedy assas­si­na­tion *on* 11/22/63 and stuck with it for a long time. Far, far longer than most. And he pub­lished For­give My Grief, Vol­ume IV, in 1974. Copy­right 1974, pri­vate­ly pub­lished by Penn Jones, Jr., in soft­cov­er.

By the way, the title comes from a poem: “In Memo­ri­am,” by Alfred Lord Ten­nyson. It says,

For­give my grief for one removed,
Thy crea­ture whom I found so fair.
I trust he lives in Thee,
And there I find him wor­thi­er to be loved.

(A lot of peo­ple have won­dered where that ref­er­ence comes from.)

But any­way, far more impor­tant than that ref­er­ence, is the asso­ci­a­tion of Glo­ria Steinem and Ms.‘s first pub­lish­er, Eliz­a­beth Forsling Har­ris. And it appears that Eliz­a­beth Forsling Har­ris was involved in plan­ning the assas­si­na­tion of John Kennedy. (Inter­est­ing, in light of Steinem’s para­mour, J. Stan­ley Pot­tinger, and his con­nec­tions not only to the assas­si­na­tion of Mar­tin Luther King, but also his asso­ci­a­tion with peo­ple like Michael Ver­non Town­ley, Frank Ter­pil, Edwin Wil­son — and not to men­tion George Bush — in the assas­si­na­tion of Orlan­do Lete­lier.)

Read­ing now from For­give My Grief, Vol­ume IV.

(And by the way, most of the arti­cles in Pen­n’s book are actu­al­ly edi­to­ri­als or inves­tiga­tive columns done by Penn in the Mid­loth­i­an Mir­ror. And this is one of them.)

Infil­trat­ing Again

The Wom­en’s Lib­er­a­tion Move­ment, as well as the Youth Move­ment, must con­stant­ly be aware of the prob­lem of infil­tra­tion by ene­mies. In fact, the [Wom­en’s] Lib­er­a­tion group may very well have been tak­en over already by the Ms. pub­lish­er, Eliz­a­beth Forsling Har­ris. Accord­ing to the Dal­las papers, Mrs. Har­ris accom­pa­nied Lib­er­a­tion leader Glo­ria Steinem dur­ing the Steinem appear­ances in Dal­las.

Since read­ing Coup d’E­tat  [20]by Edward Luttwak, it is eas­i­er to under­stand the enor­mous plan­ning, and check­ing and dou­ble-check­ing, nec­es­sary before the killing of Pres­i­dent John Kennedy could be suc­cess­ful­ly accom­plished. Tak­ing over the most pow­er­ful coun­try in the world is not a small task. Hav­ing con­stant sur­veil­lance on the opin­ion mak­ers in Dal­las was only one of the nec­es­sary req­ui­sites in the plan­ning stages. Bet­ty Forsling Har­ris appears to have been one of the high-lev­el observers moved here from Wash­ing­ton. She left Dal­las short­ly after the assas­si­na­tion.

Eliz­a­beth Forsling came to Dal­las a few years before the assas­si­na­tion. She was a great and good friend of Stan­ley Mar­cus of Nie­man-Mar­cus [depart­ment store]. She mar­ried and divorced Leon Har­ris of the A. Har­ris firm. Eliz­a­beth Forsling Har­ris worked for the Saul Bloom Adver­tis­ing Agency and was referred to by Wash­ing­ton plan­ners as “our Dal­las con­tact.” She attend­ed the impor­tant plan­ning ses­sions for the com­ing vis­it of the Pres­i­dent. The Bloom Agency han­dled the pub­lic rela­tions for the vis­it, then also han­dled pub­lic rela­tions for the Jack Ruby tri­al. This was a first for any court, to have a pub­lic rela­tions firm employed in a court case.

Eliz­a­beth Forsling Har­ris was a very close co-work­er, with Jack Put­er­baugh (sp?), on the Dal­las trip which cost the life of Pres­i­dent John Kennedy. Put­er­baugh came to Wash­ing­ton from Min­neso­ta, with Orville Free­man (sp?). In the Agri­cul­ture Depart­ment, Put­er­baugh was work­ing close­ly with Bil­ly Sol Estes, lat­er con­vict­ed and sent to prison. It was Put­er­baugh who made the deci­sion to hold the lunch in the Trade Mart, “because of the prox­im­i­ty to Love Field.” And it was Put­er­baugh who made the deci­sion to take the unau­tho­rized and unnec­es­sary detour in Dealey Plaza.

The two deci­sions make Put­er­baugh up to his hips in the assas­si­na­tion. Nei­ther he, nor Bet­ty Har­ris, were ever ques­tioned by the War­ren Com­mis­sion.

And again, the Bloom Agency han­dled the P.R. not only for Pres­i­dent Kennedy’s vis­it to Dal­las, but also han­dled the pub­lic rela­tions for Jack Ruby’s tri­al. This was the first time any court had had a pub­lic rela­tions firm employed in such a capac­i­ty. (Although my under­stand­ing is that now that is sort of stan­dard oper­at­ing pro­ce­dure, where any­one can afford it. So this was sort of a ground-break­ing event.)

One thing that is *not* includ­ed in that par­tic­u­lar arti­cle about the Bloom Agency (and recall that’s with whom Eliz­a­beth Forsling Har­ris was work­ing) is that Oswald had vis­it­ed the Bloom Agency a num­ber of times before his alleged (and obvi­ous­ly non-exis­tent) role in the assas­si­na­tion of Kennedy.

The impor­tant thing in exam­in­ing Oswald, by the way (as we looked at not only in “The Guns of Novem­ber,” but in a num­ber of Radio Free Amer­i­ca shows — the “Aryan Nation” series and “World Anti-Com­mu­nist” series in par­tic­u­lar [CN: Tapes of past broad­casts may still be avail­able; phone 415–346-1840, or con­tact Con­spir­a­cy Nation for more info]), but the impor­tant thing about exam­in­ing Oswald is to find out *who* manip­u­lat­ed him in such a way as to take the fall for the Kennedy assas­si­na­tion. Lee Har­vey Oswald did­n’t kill any­one.

The point here is that Eliz­a­beth Forsling Har­ris appears to have been a pri­ma­ry plan­ner in the Kennedy assas­si­na­tion. She was nev­er ques­tioned by the War­ren Com­mis­sion, she worked for the Bloom Agency, which had some curi­ous roles through­out the [Ruby] tri­al. And beyond that, she was heav­i­ly involved, along with Jack Put­er­baugh, in plan­ning the motor­cade route for John Kennedy. (That, of neces­si­ty — for those who’ve stud­ied the details of the assas­si­na­tion — has to have placed her, as Penn Jones indi­cat­ed, in the very cen­ter of the con­spir­a­cy itself. And as we’ve looked at in our “Aryan Nation” series as well as “The Guns of Novem­ber,” the Kennedy assas­si­na­tion was, for all intents and pur­pos­es, a mil­i­tary coup.)

Now again, per­haps the Steinem asso­ci­a­tion with Eliz­a­beth Forsling Har­ris in and of itself would­n’t be too damn­ing. But in light of all the oth­er infor­ma­tion — the Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice con­nec­tions, in light of her asso­ci­a­tion with J. Stan­ley Pot­tinger and some of the things Pot­tinger’s been involved in — it’s one more very inter­est­ing detail con­cern­ing Steinem and her involve­ment in a very deep intel­li­gence milieu.

And again, Eliz­a­beth Forsling Har­ris replaced (iron­i­cal­ly enough) by Pat Car­bine, as pub­lish­er of Ms. mag­a­zine.

Con­spir­a­cy Nation — Vol. 9 Num. 35
[CN tran­script of remarks by west coast researcher Dave Emory.] [...con­tin­ued...]

Katherine Graham

The last per­son that we’re gonna take a look at (well, the next-to-last per­son, actu­al­ly) in con­sid­er­able detail is the afore­men­tioned Kather­ine Gra­ham. A prin­ci­ple stock­hold­er in Ms. [mag­a­zine], one of the peo­ple who helped lean on Ran­dom House for the dele­tions in the book, Fem­i­nist Rev­o­lu­tion [out of print, can be searched for: hard­back [14] or paper­back [21]], Kather­ine Gra­ham is, as men­tioned, one of the key peo­ple who, not only is one of the key stock­hold­ers, but one of the key peo­ple who helped found Ms. mag­a­zine in the first place.

Kather­ine Gra­ham, as well as the entire Wash­ing­ton Post milieu, have a long-stand­ing rela­tion­ship with the Cen­tral Intel­li­gence Agency. That infor­ma­tion came to light in a book called Katharine the Great [22], sub­ti­tled, Katharine Gra­ham and her Wash­ing­ton Post [22]. Pub­lished in hard­cov­er by Har­court, Brace, Jovanovich. Authored by Debra Davis. It’s copy­right­ed 1979, by Debra Davis. And I would point out that this book is very dif­fi­cult to find because it was sup­pressed, almost cer­tain­ly because of the CIA con­nec­tions revealed in it.

What we’re going to be look­ing at here (and again, this is, in a sense, plac­ing the whole Ms. mag­a­zine sit­u­a­tion in a much larg­er frame­work) is basi­cal­ly that the Wash­ing­ton Post is part of a, well, I guess you’d have to say (iron­i­cal­ly enough here) an “old boy net­work” which is one of the major axes of the CIA’s involve­ment with the news media.

We’re going to be tak­ing a look at the evo­lu­tion of the Wash­ing­ton Post in con­junc­tion with the Cen­tral Intel­li­gence Agency. And then we’re going to take a look at Kather­ine Gra­ham’s role as head of the Wash­ing­ton Post, and the Wash­ing­ton Post’s role in get­ting rid of Richard Nixon on behalf of the U.S. Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Estab­lish­ment. As I indi­cat­ed, Water­gate was much deep­er (I guess one could say, extend­ing the metaphor) than the pop­u­lar imag­i­na­tion has gen­er­al­ly con­ceived.

But we’re going to take a look at “Kather­ine the Great” and her involve­ment with the CIA and Water­gate a lit­tle lat­er. But beyond that, we’re going to take a look at Wash­ing­ton Post as basi­cal­ly part of a long-stand­ing CIA intelligence/media milieu.

First thing we’re going to look at here is the estab­lish­ment of an oper­a­tion called “Oper­a­tion Mock­ing­bird.” This was set up, not only by Wash­ing­ton Post pub­lish­er Phil Gra­ham (the for­mer hus­band of Kather­ine Gra­ham), but also [by] a CIA offi­cial named Frank Wis­ner (sp?). We’ve tak­en a look at Frank Wis­ner’s role in import­ing the Ukrain­ian fas­cists and SS units, in Radio Free Amer­i­ca #1 and #2. And in Radio Free Amer­i­ca show #15, we looked at the role of these same ele­ments in the assas­si­na­tion of John Kennedy in set­ting up a “left” cov­er for the assas­si­na­tion. We also took a look at the role of Wes­ley Liebler (sp?), a law part­ner of Frank Wis­ner’s, in cov­er­ing up the White Russ­ian, Czarist, and Russ­ian fas­cist con­nec­tions to the assas­si­na­tion of John Kennedy. That, in Radio Free Amer­i­ca #15.

Now Frank Wis­ner and Phil Gra­ham were two of the peo­ple who helped set up Oper­a­tion Mock­ing­bird, which was a CIA/media pro­pa­gan­da effort. Debra Davis writes about this in Katharine the Great [22] as fol­lows.

Frank Wis­ner, like Phil Gra­ham, had been born a south­ern­er and had made his own way in the North­east­ern legal estab­lish­ment. Dur­ing the war [WWII], he had been recruit­ed into the OSS by William Dono­van (whose house the Gra­hams had bought) and had been sent to the Balka­ns where he con­ceived of and exe­cut­ed oper­a­tions that became mod­els for future psy­cho­log­i­cal war­fare. He had been exclud­ed from post­war intel­li­gence because of bureau­crat­ic infight­ing, had been asked to return as Deputy Assis­tant Sec­re­tary of State for Occu­pied Coun­tries, an intel­li­gence post, and by Sep­tem­ber of 1948 he was named Direc­tor of the Office of Pol­i­cy Coor­di­na­tion [OPC], the covert oper­a­tions arm of the CIA. OPC and CIA were offi­cial­ly merged in 1952. At OPC, Wis­ner devel­oped a vision that the war against Com­mu­nism would be fought not as anoth­er large war, but as a series of “guer­ril­la-like skir­mish­es,” a sit­u­a­tion that he sought to con­trol.

Some­times in co-oper­a­tion with embassies or the Mar­shall Plan out­posts, and some­times not, Wis­ner had already begun wide-scale recruit­ment of for­eign stu­dents and infil­tra­tion of labor unions. But he want­ed some­thing more, a way not only to sub­vert and dis­rupt but to give for­eign peo­ples a sense of Amer­i­ca, to “alter their per­cep­tions” against Com­mu­nism with­out vio­lence. And thus Wis­ner, his deputy Richard Helms, and Phillip Gra­ham, con­ceived of a for­mal pro­gram to recruit and use jour­nal­ists. A hap­haz­ard prac­tice until then, it was said to have had the code name, “Oper­a­tion Mock­ing­bird.”

And Philip Gra­ham here, again, one of the peo­ple work­ing with Richard Helms, lat­er Direc­tor of Cen­tral Intel­li­gence, and CIA offi­cial Frank Wis­ner, was one of the peo­ple who helped devel­op this Oper­a­tion Mock­ing­bird: the first, and most long-run­ning and suc­cess­ful, of the many CIA pro­grams infil­trat­ing and manip­u­lat­ing the news media.

The next thing we’re going to look at is the pri­ma­ry role that the CIA has played in build­ing the Wash­ing­ton Post over the years and the Wash­ing­ton Post Cor­po­ra­tion. Again, return­ing to Katharine the Great by Debra Davis:

But the Post was also unique among news com­pa­nies in that its man­agers, liv­ing and work­ing in Wash­ing­ton, thought of them­selves simul­ta­ne­ous­ly as jour­nal­ists, busi­ness­men, and patri­ots, a state of mind that made them sin­gu­lar­ly able to expand the com­pa­ny while pro­mot­ing the nation­al inter­est. Their indi­vid­ual rela­tions with intel­li­gence had, in fact, been the rea­son that the Post com­pa­ny had grown as fast as it did after the war. Their secrets were its cor­po­rate secrets, begin­ning with Mock­ing­bird. Phillip Gra­ham’s com­mitt­ment to intel­li­gence gave his friend Frank Wis­ner and Allen Dulles an inter­est in mak­ing the Wash­ing­ton Post the dom­i­nant news vehi­cle in Wash­ing­ton, which they did by assist­ing its two most cru­cial acqui­si­tions, the Times-Her­ald and WTOP [radio].

The Post-men most essen­tial to these trans­ac­tions (oth­er than Phil) were Wayne Coy, the Post exec­u­tive who had been Phil’s for­mer New Deal boss, and John S. Hayes (sp?), who replaced Coy in 1947 when Coy was appoint­ed chair­man of the Fed­er­al Com­mu­ni­ca­tions Com­mis­sion. It worked like this: Hayes had been com­man­der of the Armed Forces Radio Net­work, ETO (Euro­pean The­ater of Oper­a­tions), and in that capac­i­ty had made intel­li­gence con­nec­tions all over Europe. He came to the Post, after turn­ing the net­work to the ser­vice of the Mar­shall Plan, with the title of Vice Pres­i­dent for Radio and Tele­vi­sion. In Wash­ing­ton, he became friend­ly with Frank Wis­ner, father of [Oper­a­tion] Mock­ing­bird, and with Allen Dulles, an OSS man who became the sec­ond Direc­tor of the new CIA in 1953.

(I would inter­rupt, of course you look at Dulles’ role in the Bay of Pigs and the impor­ta­tion and manip­u­la­tion of the [Nazi] Gehlen orga­ni­za­tion as well as the assas­si­na­tion of Kennedy.)

The rela­tion­ship with Dulles was par­tic­u­lar­ly impor­tant because of Dulles’ ties to Wall Street, from which intel­li­gence, indus­try, and gov­ern­ment all draw their lead­ers — the men who form this coun­try’s rul­ing clique.

Between 1937 and 1943, when he joined the OSS, Dulles had been a direc­tor of the Schroed­er Bank, which in Ger­many had mis­judged the one­ness of cor­po­rate and nation­al inter­ests to the extent of help­ing to finance Hitler because he promised to sta­bi­lize the Ger­man econ­o­my. From his mem­ber­ship in the tiny mer­chant bank­ing com­mu­ni­ty, which includes at any time only about 100 active part­ners dis­trib­uted among the Mor­gan, Lazar (sp?), Roth­schild, Ham­bros, and Bering Hous­es, Dulles knew and respect­ed for­mer Lazar asso­ciate Eugene Mey­er.

Con­spir­a­cy Nation — Vol. 9 Num. 39
CN tran­script of remarks by west coast researcher Dave Emory.] [...con­tin­ued...]

From his cor­po­rate law work at Sul­li­van & Cromwell, the pre-emi­nent for­eign pol­i­cy law firm in Amer­i­ca, Dulles was close to [Wash­ing­ton] Post com­pa­ny attor­ney Fred­er­ick S. Beebe (sp?) at Kra­vath, Swain & Moore (sp?), anoth­er for­eign pol­i­cy firm. A qui­et, thought­ful man, Beebe had been recruit­ed out of Yale 1938 by Kra­vath senior part­ner Roswell Gilpatrick (sp?), lat­er the Assis­tant Sec­re­tary of Defense under Robert McNa­ma­ra dur­ing the Viet­nam War. At Kra­vath, Beebe had been assigned to han­dle estate plan­ning and oth­er legal affairs for the Mey­er fam­i­ly

(That’s the fam­i­ly from which Kather­ine Gra­ham came, by the way.)

and even­tu­al­ly became their chief cor­po­rate as well as per­son­al coun­sel, rep­re­sent­ing their inter­ests in every sig­nif­i­cant trans­ac­tion over three decades, includ­ing the legal­ly com­plex, monop­o­lis­tic acqui­si­tion of the Times-Her­ald in ’54. The merg­er was crit­i­cal for Kather­ine [Gra­ham’s] fam­i­ly, con­firm­ing their pow­er and influ­ence in Wash­ing­ton and mak­ing the paper finan­cial­ly “safe enough for her son Don­ny.”

It was also crit­i­cal to Hayes, Phil Gra­ham, Beebe, Wis­ner, and Dulles — men who had a polit­i­cal inter­est in her fam­i­ly’s news­pa­per — because the Times-Her­ald main­tained a bank of dossiers rou­tine­ly made avail­able to the FBI, the CIA’s rival in domes­tic Cold War intel­li­gence. When Col. McCormick decid­ed to sell his near­ly bank­rupt Wash­ing­ton news­pa­per, he asked Eugene Mey­er the price of $8.5 mil­lion for it, about three times its worth. John Hayes went to Chica­go in March of 1954 to make the ini­tial pay­ment in cash. The merg­er drove up the val­ue of the Post’s stock and made the exec­u­tives rich­er. It also increased the CIA’s access to infor­ma­tion, news sources, and co-oper­a­tive news­men, to the ben­e­fit of [Oper­a­tion] Mock­ing­bird, which Frank Wis­ner had been expand­ing through­out the Cold War.

So, review­ing that sec­tion very briefly, not only in its acqui­si­tion of radio sta­tion WTOP, but also the McCormick news­pa­per the Wash­ing­ton Times-Her­ald, basi­cal­ly the CIA was inti­mate­ly involved in assist­ing the [Wash­ing­ton] Post and there­by, obvi­ous­ly, also assist­ing itself, in cement­ing its rela­tion­ship with one of this coun­try’s major papers.

Now the next ele­ment of the Wash­ing­ton Post/CIA asso­ci­a­tion we’re going to be look­ing at con­cerns Wash­ing­ton Post edi­tor Ben Bradlee, his broth­er-in-law (a man named Cord Mey­er, a CIA counter-intel­li­gence offi­cial oper­at­ing under James Jesus Angle­ton), and also, a fel­low named Richard Ober.

Now Richard Ober is a close friend and old bud­dy of Ben Bradlee. Richard Ober also went to work for CIA. And Richard Ober was to become “Deep Throat” him­self. We’re gonna talk about that in a minute. The point is, here, Cord Mey­er is anoth­er CIA counter-intel­li­gence offi­cial. He is the broth­er-in-law of Ben Bradlee.

In 1956, Ben and Toni Bradlee are part of a com­mu­ni­ty of Amer­i­cans who have remained in Paris after hav­ing been trained in intel­li­gence dur­ing the war or in pro­pa­gan­da at the Eco­nom­ic Coop­er­a­tion Admin­is­tra­tion. Many have now addressed them­selves to fight­ing Com­mu­nism, a less vis­i­ble but more insid­i­ous ene­my than Nazi-ism had been. Some of them, like Bradlee, are jour­nal­ists who write from the Cold War point of view. Some are intel­li­gence oper­a­tives who trav­el between Wash­ing­ton and Paris, Lon­don and Rome. In Wash­ing­ton, at Phillip Gra­ham’s salon, they plan and phi­los­o­phize. In for­eign cities, they do the work of keep­ing Euro­pean Com­mu­nism in check.

Bradlee’s child­hood friend, Richard Helms, is part of this group. He has writ­ten por­tions of the Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Act of 1947, a set of laws cre­at­ing a Cen­tral Intel­li­gence Agency and the Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Agency, the lat­ter to sup­port the CIA with research into codes and elec­tron­ic com­mu­ni­ca­tions. Helms is the Agen­cy’s chief expert on espi­onage. His agents pen­e­trate the gov­ern­ment of the Sovi­et Union and left­ist polit­i­cal par­ties through­out Europe, South Amer­i­ca, Africa and Asia. Angle­ton and Ober are counter-intel­li­gence and run agents from Wash­ing­ton to Paris who do exact­ly the oppo­site: they pre­vent spies from pen­e­trat­ing Amer­i­can embassies, the State Depart­ment, the CIA itself.

Head of the third activ­i­ty, covert oper­a­tions, is Phil Gra­ham’s com­pa­tri­ot, Frank Wis­ner, the father of [Oper­a­tion] Mock­ing­bird, whose prin­ci­pal oper­a­tive is a man named Cord Mey­er, Jr. Mey­er was a lit­er­a­ture and phi­los­o­phy major at Yale, and is con­se­quent­ly well-liked by Angle­ton who, when at Yale, thought of him­self as a poet and edit­ed a lit­er­ary mag­a­zine. Mey­er is mar­ried to Toni Bradlee’s sis­ter, Mary Pin­chot Mey­er, the woman who lat­er became [John F.] Kennedy’s lover and was mur­dered in 1964.

Among the fas­ci­nat­ing and glam­orous Amer­i­cans of Paris, Lon­don and Rome, the Mey­ers are more fas­ci­nat­ing and glam­orous than the rest. Mary was the most bril­liant and beau­ti­ful girl in her class at Vas­sar and is now a painter begin­ning to be crit­i­cal­ly rec­og­nized. Cord is an attrac­tive and artic­u­late fig­ure whose evo­lu­tion as an anti-Com­mu­nist has giv­en him a unique under­stand­ing of Com­mu­nist trends in Euro­pean trade union and Third World lib­er­a­tion move­ments. Because of this spe­cial­ized knowl­edge, he is, as few men are, con­sid­ered with­in the Agency to be indis­pens­able.

The point is here that, not only was Ben Bradlee, the edi­tor of the Wash­ing­ton Post, him­self trained in intel­li­gence, very close not only to Richard Helms (who was CIA Direc­tor at the time of Water­gate), but also to Cord Mey­er, his broth­er-in-law, a key CIA counter-intel­li­gence offi­cial, and also [to] a man named Richard Ober. We’re gonna talk about Richard Ober a lit­tle lat­er.

But again, the point here is that the Wash­ing­ton Post is real­ly (like many oth­er news­pa­pers in this coun­try) inex­tri­ca­ble from the U.S. intel­li­gence estab­lish­ment. And that very rela­tion­ship was indis­pens­able in help­ing the Wash­ing­ton Post to grow as an insti­tu­tion.

Now although Phillip Gra­ham was one of the peo­ple who helped set up the work­ing rela­tion­ship between the [Wash­ing­ton] Post (and oth­er news media) with the CIA, he even­tu­al­ly, for a rea­son or rea­sons unknown, began to dis­in­te­grate men­tal­ly. One of the inter­est­ing “symp­toms” (if one could call it that) of his men­tal dis­in­te­gra­tion is that he became very vocal and crit­i­cal about the CIA rela­tion­ship with the news media. (Which, of course, he had helped to set up in the first place.)

Again, read­ing from Katharine the Great, of Phillip Gra­ham, [Debra Davis] writes,

He had begun to talk, after his sec­ond break­down, about the CIA’s manip­u­la­tion of jour­nal­ists. He said it dis­turbed him. He said it to the CIA. His enchant­ment with jour­nal­ism, it seemed, was fad­ing. “News­pa­pers are the rough drafts of his­to­ry,” he now thought. “Media pol­i­tics do not become his­to­ry until the moral judg­ments are in.”

As he became more des­per­ate, unable to con­trol the forces that con­trolled him (one of the man­ic-depres­sive’s great­est fears), he turned against the news­men and politi­cians whose code was mutu­al trust and, strange­ly, silence.

So it’s worth not­ing here that, upon the eve of his death, which in turn was a few months before Pres­i­dent Kennedy was to be killed (and obvi­ous­ly, the whole thing was very much in the work­ings at that time. Peo­ple can check our archive tapes for that. [415–346-1840]). But it’s inter­est­ing that Phillip Gra­ham had become dis­en­chant­ed, and vocal­ly so, about the very rela­tion­ship between CIA and the media that he had helped to set up in the first place.

Now even­tu­al­ly, as a result of this men­tal dis­in­te­gra­tion, Phillip Gra­ham was interred in a very well-known men­tal insti­tu­tion called “Chest­nut Lodge.” Many peo­ple have sug­gest­ed that Chest­nut Lodge is one of the many CIA mind-con­trol insti­tu­tions or ones that have been affil­i­at­ed with it. I can’t doc­u­ment that. It’s some­thing I’ve heard said. But it is inter­est­ing in light of the long­stand­ing and suc­cess­ful effort of the CIA to not only use mind-con­trol tech­niques — hyp­no­sis, psy­cho-surgery, and psy­cho-phar­ma­col­o­gy — to get peo­ple to com­mit assas­si­na­tions, but then to com­mit sui­cide them­selves lat­er, there­by seal­ing their lips.

Con­spir­a­cy Nation — Vol. 9 Num. 40
[CN tran­script of remarks by west coast researcher Dave Emory.] [...con­tin­ued...]

It’s worth not­ing here because, upon leave from Chest­nut Lodge, Phil Gra­ham blew his own brains out, in August of 1963.

Read­ing again from Katharine the Great:

Death pre­oc­cu­pied Phil all that Spring. Three times, with per­mis­sion to leave Chest­nut Lodge, he vis­it­ed Edward Ben­nett Williams to re-write his will, each time reduc­ing Kather­ine’s share of his estate. On the sec­ond vis­it, he demand­ed that Williams burn the first will. On the third, he had him burn the sec­ond. These wills rescind­ed and super­seded the care­ful­ly thought out doc­u­ment of long­stand­ing, one that pro­vid­ed trust funds for his chil­dren and gave the bulk of his estate to his wife. After he died, dur­ing pro­bate, Kather­ine’s lawyer chal­lenged the legal­i­ty of the last will. The pro­bate pro­ceed­ing enabled Kather­ine to take con­trol of the [Wash­ing­ton] Post with no sig­nif­i­cant legal prob­lem. Although with the dis­cred­it­ed will not on the pub­lic record, it is not known who Phil might have des­ig­nat­ed in her place.

Man­ic-depres­sives fre­quent­ly plan their deaths on the anniver­sary of a sig­nif­i­cant event. Sat­ur­day, August 3rd, 1963, was the 15th anniver­sary of the for­ma­tion of the Wash­ing­ton Post Com­pa­ny, the umbrel­la cor­po­ra­tion for the Post and oth­er prop­er­ty in which Kather­ine and Phil Gra­ham were sole part­ners. On the morn­ing of August 3rd, Phil tele­phoned Kather­ine from Chest­nut Lodge and said that he was feel­ing much bet­ter. He asked if he could spend the week­end with her on their farm. Kather­ine called Joe Rowe (sp?) and told him hap­pi­ly, “Phil is bet­ter! He’s com­ing home. Why don’t you come over and see him on Tues­day?”

On Mon­day he would spend the day with the chil­dren. She picked him up at Chest­nut Lodge that morn­ing. They drove to a small Vir­ginia town called War­ren­ton, in Fochi­er (sp?) Coun­ty, 42 miles south­west of Wash­ing­ton, in the Vir­ginia Hunt coun­try. The farm, Glen Wel­by (sp?), was that of a gen­tle­man and week­end hunter, equipped with tele­vi­sion and tele­phones, books and paint­ings, shot­guns for hunt­ing deer and rifles for quail hunt­ing par­ties, hors­es, ser­vants, a large, well-stocked kitchen and bar. Kather­ine and Phil spent some time togeth­er, and then Kather­ine took a nap. Phil went down­stairs, sat on the edge of the bath­tub, and shot him­self in the head.

Again, he may very well have been dis­turbed here. How­ev­er one of the x‑factors that’s miss­ing here from Debra Davis’s rumi­na­tions on the death of Phil Gra­ham is his long stand­ing with intel­li­gence and, in turn, the long­stand­ing, ongo­ing, and high­ly suc­cess­ful attempts by the CIA to insti­tute mind con­trol, includ­ing train­ing mind-con­trol assas­sins and con­se­quent­ly (as we looked at in our Radio Free Amer­i­ca series on mind con­trol) to get some of those assas­sins (or appar­ent assas­sins: they’re often used as decoys) to com­mit sui­cide. So whether or not the death of Phillip Gra­ham here, who had become dis­en­chant­ed with the pat­tern of CIA co-oper­a­tion with the media, had any­thing at all to do with CIA mind con­trol, remains to be seen. As we like to say here, “Food for thought, and grounds for fur­ther research.” It is worth not­ing, though, that this hap­pened just about 3 months before the assas­si­na­tion of Pres­i­dent Kennedy. It’s also worth not­ing that Phillip Gra­ham’s dis­cred­it­ed wills *might* have invest­ed the Wash­ing­ton Post (at least to a cer­tain extent) away from the CIA which had been so inex­tri­ca­bly involved with it from the very begin­ning.

And of course, one of the main names to take note of here — again, by way of not­ing how the Wash­ing­ton Post real­ly is part of a sort of old intel­li­gence, old boy net­work here — is the name of Edward Ben­nett Williams, the own­er of the Wash­ing­ton Red­skins for a while, and now the Bal­ti­more Ori­oles. Edward Ben­nett Williams is one of the prime, intel­li­gence-relat­ed attor­neys in the Unit­ed States. His clients not only include Richard Helms, whose asso­ci­a­tion with Ben Bradlee we looked at awhile ago (Helms, of course, CIA Direc­tor; CIA Direc­tor at the time of the over­throw of the Allende gov­ern­ment, worked with Hen­ry Kissinger, [Glo­ria] Steinem’s old [boyfriend], among oth­ers.) But Edward Ben­nett Williams has rep­re­sent­ed John Con­nal­ly, Jim­my Hof­fa, Robert Vesco. And inter­est­ing­ly enough, it was while work­ing as an inves­ti­ga­tor for Edward Ben­nett Williams’s law firm, that Robert Maheu, for­mer­ly of the [Howard] Hugh­es orga­ni­za­tion, helped set up the orga­nized crime assas­si­na­tion teams which were alleged­ly to be used against Cas­tro, but there’s some indi­ca­tion that they were used against John Kennedy instead. [CN: See, for exam­ple, “Alpha-66,” CN [23] 8.43] Again, doc­u­men­ta­tion on that, on “Guns of Novem­ber,” pro­gram #1, the first of our 4 pro­grams on the assas­si­na­tion of John Kennedy.

It’s worth not­ing here now too, that sur­round­ing the death of John Kennedy, we have an inter­est­ing sit­u­a­tion that, not only does Phillip Gra­ham “bow out” in sort of a gris­ly fash­ion, but also *after* John Kennedy was killed, in Octo­ber of 1964, Mary Mey­er, the ex-wife of Cord Mey­er, the broth­er-in-law of Ben Bradlee (who him­self had intel­li­gence con­nec­tions) — Cord Mey­er, a key CIA counter-intel­li­gence offi­cial — Mary Mey­er was mur­dered, her diary then appro­pri­at­ed by CIA counter-intel­li­gence chief James Angle­ton.

Read­ing again from Katharine the Great:

Ben Bradlee was con­sid­ered by some mem­bers of the Wash­ing­ton press to be insen­si­tive and ruth­less, pro­fes­sion­al­ly and social­ly. He was indis­crete about hav­ing been on inti­mate terms with Kennedy, one aspect of which was that his sis­ter-in-law, Mary Pin­chot Mey­er, who had lived in Bradlee’s ren­o­vat­ed garage, had been Kennedy’s lover. Mary Mey­er had been mur­dered in Octo­ber of 1964. She was killed near her house, or by the C&O Canal in George­town, shot or stabbed. The loca­tion, even the man­ner of her death, varies with each account. Imme­di­ate­ly after she died, James Angle­ton, the CIA’s Chief of Counter-Intel­li­gence, searched her apart­ment for a diary she had kept about Kennedy and took it to CIA head­quar­ters. Sup­pos­ed­ly to burn it, although because of his train­ing he nev­er destroyed any doc­u­ment. A year lat­er, when Bradlee went to the [Wash­ing­ton] Post, the slay­ing was still unsolved. (It has nev­er been solved. Bradlee was unchar­ac­ter­is­ti­cal­ly silent about it.)

So the point here again is, right around the time John Kennedy was leav­ing this world, a lot of the peo­ple with­in the whole Wash­ing­ton Post axis (and again, I use that term [“axis”] advis­ed­ly) were also “bow­ing out” in gris­ly fash­ion: Phil Gra­ham, and the late, unfor­tu­nate, Mary Pin­chot Mey­er, being a cou­ple of them here.

Watergate

Now the last two details that we’re gonna look at here are, in a sense, a sort of an abbre­vi­at­ed look at the Wash­ing­ton Post involve­ment with CIA in the Water­gate case. Now one of the aspects of Water­gate that has not received enough pub­lic­i­ty is the fact that it appears almost prob­a­ble that the CIA, as well as oth­er ele­ments of the Nation­al Secu­ri­ty estab­lish­ment, want­ed Richard Nixon out for a rea­son or rea­sons which are debat­able. Debra Davis here gives some rea­sons; we’re gonna enter­tain those. I’m gonna sug­gest a cou­ple of oth­ers here in a cou­ple of min­utes.

Now we could go into the indi­ca­tions of CIA involve­ment in Water­gate all day. Unfor­tu­nate­ly, due to time lim­i­ta­tions here, we’re not gonna be able to do it. Suf­fice it to say that James McCord, who was a very high-rank­ing intel­li­gence offi­cial, head of the secu­ri­ty orga­ni­za­tion for the Com­mit­tee to Re-Elect the Pres­i­dent, led the Water­gate bur­glars into the Water­gate Hotel. Now one of the things that McCord did is, after plac­ing a piece of tape on the door to alert him as to whether or not the “Plumbers’ ” pres­ence had been dis­cov­ered in the Water­gate — when he dis­cov­ered that tape miss­ing, he then replaced the tape *with­out* noti­fy­ing the oth­er Plumbers. For a man of McCord’s very long­stand­ing and sophis­ti­cat­ed involve­ment with the intel­li­gence com­mu­ni­ty, that is frankly incred­i­ble, if one is to accept that James McCord was not a dou­ble agent placed with­in the Plumbers orga­ni­za­tion to get rid of Richard Nixon on behalf of CIA and oth­ers. That is the gen­er­al view of most researchers, sim­ply because as soon as McCord saw that tape miss­ing he has to have known that their pres­ence in the Water­gate Hotel was dis­cov­ered. There’s no oth­er con­clu­sion. He placed the tape to alert him to a dis­cov­ery. When he saw it was miss­ing — not just knocked off, but miss­ing — he has to have known that their pres­ence was dis­cov­ered. Despite that, he replaced the tape again; did­n’t alert the oth­er Plumbers. And when the secu­ri­ty guard at the Water­gate Hotel saw that the tape was replaced again, he noti­fied author­i­ties. Because obvi­ous­ly he knew some­one was in there. So again, that’s just one of the many indi­ca­tors that, in fact, Nixon’s Plumbers unit was deep-sixed by CIA from the inside. The motives for doing so remain a mat­ter of debate.

Now obvi­ous­ly, peo­ple are aware of the role of the Wash­ing­ton Post, Wood­ward and Bern­stein in par­tic­u­lar, in break­ing the Water­gate case. It appears that Wood­ward and Bern­stein, through Kather­ine Gra­ham the pub­lish­er and Ben Bradlee, were manip­u­lat­ed by CIA — and specif­i­cal­ly, Richard Ober, an asso­ciate of Bradlee’s and him­self a key CIA counter-intel­li­gence offi­cial, along with Cord Mey­er, Bradlee’s broth­er-in-law. Richard Ober was indeed the “Deep Throat” who alert­ed Wood­ward and Bern­stein. Inter­est­ing­ly enough, Richard Ober was also head of “Oper­a­tion Chaos,” a CIA domes­tic counter-intel­li­gence oper­a­tion which involved set­ting up provo­ca­tions as well as infil­trat­ing rad­i­cal groups.

Of the Wash­ing­ton Post’s role in remov­ing Richard Nixon and in the Water­gate case, Debra Davis writes as fol­lows. (You’ll see some ref­er­ences here to the book, All The Pres­i­den­t’s Men, [24] by Wood­ward and Bern­stein.)

Water­gate was, accord­ing to this sce­nario, a counter-intel­li­gence oper­a­tion of the high­est order, car­ried out for patri­ot­ic as well as bureau­crat­ic rea­sons which were, in the minds of the intel­li­gence direc­tors, one and the same. It is clear what their motives must have been. Kissinger was pur­su­ing a dis­as­trous pol­i­cy in Cam­bo­dia, dis­re­gard­ing the CIA’s advice and blam­ing the CIA when he failed — all the time adding fuel to the anti-war move­ment. Nixon’s harsh and stu­pid attempts to “get polit­i­cal con­trol over the CIA,” as Water­gate bur­glar James McCord lat­er told the Sen­ate Water­gate Com­mit­tee, his inten­tion to have the Agen­cy’s judge­ments con­form to rather than inform his poli­cies, “smacked of the sit­u­a­tion which Hitler’s intel­li­gence chiefs found them­selves in” before the fall of Ger­many. But pri­mar­i­ly because Nixon seemed at times to be insane, a ter­ri­ble and a dan­ger­ous head of state, dou­ble-agent Ober, by this log­ic, arranged for dou­ble-agent McCord to be arrest­ed dur­ing the Water­gate break-in. And then Richard Ober, the head of Oper­a­tion Chaos, the only man in the nation with access to clas­si­fied infor­ma­tion at the White House, the FBI, the CIA, and CRP [Com­mit­tee to Re-Elect the Pres­i­dent], became Deep Throat, a favor to Ben Bradlee, an old Har­vard chum. Ober’s boss, James Angle­ton, final­ly had achieved the ulti­mate dirty trick. Bradlee would take all the risks, and either Bradlee would suc­ceed in get­ting rid of Nixon, or Kather­ine Gra­ham would have to sal­vage her news­pa­per by get­ting rid of Bradlee.

That, basi­cal­ly, is the view of Richard Ober, the counter-intel­li­gence offi­cial of CIA. The fur­ther infor­ma­tion that Richard Ober was, in fact, Deep Throat, and that the CIA and Wash­ing­ton Post were involved in remov­ing Nixon, is added here by Debra Davis. (It does­n’t real­ly mat­ter the order here, but I read that a lit­tle out of order.)

But again, read­ing more about the use of Wash­ing­ton Post by CIA and CIA counter-intel­li­gence to remove Nixon, Debra Davis writes as fol­lows.

The minor decep­tion in the book is that only Wood­ward knew who Deep Throat was.

(That book, of course: All The Pres­i­den­t’s Men.)

Bradlee knew him; had known him for longer than Wood­ward. There is a pos­si­bil­i­ty that Wood­ward had met him while work­ing as an intel­li­gence liai­son between the Pen­ta­gon and the White House, where Deep Throat spent a lot of time, and that he con­sid­ered Wood­ward trust­wor­thy or use­ful and began talk­ing to him when the time was right. It is equal­ly like­ly, though, that Bradlee, who had giv­en Wood­ward oth­er sources on oth­er sto­ries, put them in touch after Wood­ward’s first day on the sto­ry, when Water­gate bur­glar James McCord said at his arraign­ment hear­ing that he had once worked for the CIA. Whether or not Bradlee pro­vid­ed the source, he rec­og­nized McCord’s state­ment to the court as high­ly unusu­al. CIA employ­ees, when caught in an ille­gal act, do not admit that they work for the CIA unless that is part of the plan. McCord had no good rea­sons to men­tion the CIA at all, except appar­ent­ly to direct wide atten­tion to the bur­glary, because he had been asked to state only his present occu­pa­tion and he had not worked for the CIA for sev­er­al years.

(I think that last state­ment is open to ques­tion. That last state­ment of Debra Davis is open to ques­tion.)

What mat­ters is not how the con­nec­tion with Deep Throat was made, but why. Why did Bradlee allow Wood­ward to rely so heav­i­ly upon it? And ulti­mate­ly, why did the lead­ers of the intel­li­gence com­mu­ni­ty, for whom Deep Throat spoke, want the Pres­i­dent of the Unit­ed States to fall?

All of that, real­ly, high­lights the ongo­ing asso­ci­a­tion of not only the Wash­ing­ton Post, but Kather­ine Gra­ham, a key part­ner in the Ms. [mag­a­zine] axis, in work­ing with CIA.

Now one sce­nario that is not dis­cussed by Debra Davis con­cerns the pos­si­bil­i­ty that Richard Nixon was not only removed because he was a dan­ger­ous leader, but there are a lot of indi­ca­tions that he was removed, basi­cal­ly, because the mil­i­tary and the “far right” were upset with his poli­cies of detente towards the Sovi­et Union and Chi­na. The Chi­na lob­by in par­tic­u­lar (and we’ve looked at that in great detail in Radio Free Amer­i­ca shows #11, #14, and #15, the sec­ond of our “Aryan Nations” pro­grams and our two “Anti-Com­mu­nist League” pro­grams), the Chi­na lob­by is a dom­i­nant and extreme­ly reac­tionary force in Amer­i­can pol­i­tics. Nixon was very close to them and many researchers feel (and there’s indi­ca­tions that they felt betrayed by Richard Nixon) that they want­ed a hard­er “Cold War­rior” than Nixon turned out to be — even though he was a life­long anti-Com­mu­nist — and that as a result they had him removed. That’s anoth­er inter­pre­ta­tion that many researchers have.

I also think... (I think that is cor­rect.) I also think, to a cer­tain extent, Debra Davis’s analy­sis is cor­rect. In a sense, Nixon want­ed to become larg­er than the sys­tem. As of 11/22/63, the intel­li­gence ser­vices and mil­i­tary were giv­ing orders to the Pres­i­dent, not the oth­er way around. Nixon (although he was involved in the Kennedy assas­si­na­tion him­self, as we looked at in the “Guns of Novem­ber,” pro­gram #3, about Water­gate con­nec­tions to the assas­si­na­tion), Nixon want­ed to basi­cal­ly gain con­trol of the whole show. He did­n’t want to be a ser­vant; he wished to be a mas­ter. I think Davis’s analy­sis in that respect is cor­rect, and that that was one of the rea­sons why he was oust­ed.

Many peo­ple feel that the Kennedy assas­si­na­tion and Nixon’s involve­ment in it was the lever used to oust Richard Nixon. The fact that Kennedy’s assas­si­na­tion and dis­cus­sion of it appears to have been involved *with* the Water­gate tapes them­selves we went into in great length in “Guns of Novem­ber” #3. Also, there’s some inter­est­ing infor­ma­tion in an inter­view that I had with Gor­don Nov­el (sp?), one of the prin­ci­pal fig­ures in Jim Gar­rison’s inves­ti­ga­tion in New Orleans. The full tape is avail­able from Dav-Cor (sp?), and a lit­tle blurb of that is some­thing that you hear on our lit­tle pro­mo­tion­al part that I’m going to play in just a cou­ple min­utes.

Again, this dis­cus­sion of Katharine Gra­ham and the Wash­ing­ton Post, and their mutu­al asso­ci­a­tion with CIA, is being includ­ed here not only for the infor­ma­tion about Water­gate, the fact that CIA offi­cial Richard Ober, in charge of Oper­a­tion Chaos, appears to have been Deep Throat, but pri­mar­i­ly because, in con­nec­tion with all the oth­er asso­ci­a­tions — Clay Felk­er and Glo­ria Steinem, Eliz­a­beth Forsling Har­ris — it paints a rather damn­ing pic­ture not only of Glo­ria Steinem her­self, and her asso­ci­a­tion with peo­ple like Pot­tinger and so forth, but that it shows a larg­er pat­tern of CIA co-oper­a­tion with and manip­u­la­tion of the media.

Con­spir­a­cy Nation — Vol. 9 Num. 43
[CN tran­script of remarks by west coast researcher Dave Emory.] [...con­tin­ued...]

One last item here that I’m gonna talk about (actu­al­ly, review; we read this last week) con­cerns the curi­ous asso­ci­a­tions of Geral­dine Fer­raro. Again, by way of tak­ing a look at reac­tionary and intel­li­gence infil­tra­tion of the wom­en’s move­ment and per­haps, at this point, con­trol of the same. Research cred­it for this arti­cle goes to Ted Rubin­stein, and it’s from a Bet­ty Beale (sp?) col­umn. She’s a soci­ety colum­nist. And it was car­ried in the Cleve­land Plain Deal­er on Octo­ber 14th, 1984. It’s fea­tured by the News Amer­i­ca Syn­di­cate.

Polit­i­cal Oppo­nents Make Strange Play­mates

You’d nev­er guess it, but ultra-lib­er­al Geral­dine Fer­raro and super-con­ser­v­a­tive Roy Cohn are friends. In fact, Cohn, the brash young inves­ti­ga­tor of the Joe McCarthy days, may have been the first to plug Fer­raro for the Demo­c­ra­t­ic vice-pres­i­den­tial nom­i­na­tion.

It hap­pened at Cohn’s birth­day par­ty last Feb­ru­ary at Regine’s in the “Big Apple” [New York City]. It was “quite a do,” says Vic­tor Lasky (sp?), author of It Did­n’t Start With Water­gate [25]. “Our Ambas­sador to Aus­tria, Helene von Damme (sp?) was there, as was promi­nent New York­er host­ess C.Z. Guest (sp?), Bar­bara Wal­ters, the Rupert Mur­dochs, Andy Warhol, Bian­ca Jag­ger, the Charles Wick­es (sp?), Baron and Baroness Ricky DePort­no­va (sp?), and Heav­en knows who else, and the John Zac­aros (sp?).” In fact, the Zac­aros had been at pre­vi­ous Cohn birth­day cel­e­bra­tions. [CN: As I rec­ol­lect, Zac­aro was/is Fer­raro’s hus­band.]

It was at the last one, how­ev­er, that the lawyer/host [Cohn] intro­duced Fer­raro as the pos­si­ble next vice-pres­i­den­tial can­di­date of the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty. Play­mates make strange pol­i­tics.

Now a cou­ple of the inter­est­ing points about the Roy Cohn/Geraldine Fer­raro asso­ci­a­tion and the fact that Roy Cohn appears to have been the first per­son to pro­mote Geral­dine Fer­raro as the Demo­c­ra­t­ic vice-pres­i­den­tial can­di­date: Roy Cohn, although a lumi­nary in New York soci­ety until his death, he was nom­i­nal­ly a Demo­c­rat. But he was a loy­al sup­port­er of Ronald Rea­gan and obvi­ous­ly one of the guid­ing fig­ures of the “far right” for a long time. Also, as we’ve looked at from the book Farewell, Amer­i­ca, he him­self was a par­tic­i­pant in the assas­si­na­tion of Pres­i­dent Kennedy.

Now the fact that the Geral­dine Fer­raro finan­cial scan­dals, as well as her hus­band’s ques­tion­able deals with mafiosi pos­si­bly, and real estate manip­u­la­tions, were a cou­ple of the things that real­ly dam­aged the Demo­c­ra­t­ic cam­paign in 1984. It’s ques­tion­able whether Wal­ter Mon­dale would have been able to win at all. But when the Demo­c­ra­t­ic cam­paign got off on such a low note, it was basi­cal­ly dead almost from the word go. Mon­dale nev­er real­ly had a chance, and Geral­dine Fer­raro is one of the rea­sons why.

Now the rea­son, again, that I bring up the Roy Cohn asso­ci­a­tion with Fer­raro... And note, also, that Helene von Damme is a close friend of Roy Cohn’s — of course, her asso­ci­a­tion not only with Ronald Rea­gan, but Nazi war crim­i­nal Otto von Bolschwing (sp?) we’ve dealt with in Radio Free Amer­i­ca show #3. Hele­na von Dame was Rea­gan’s appoint­ments sec­re­tary, drew up the lists of peo­ple from whom his guber­na­to­r­i­al appoint­ments were made when he was Gov­er­nor of Cal­i­for­nia, and moved into the White House and became Spe­cial White House Exec­u­tive Direc­tor for Per­son­nel. She chose also, basi­cal­ly, the lists of peo­ple to be select­ed as cab­i­net appointees in this [Rea­gan’s] admin­is­tra­tion.

The ques­tion, I think, that has to be asked here is whether or not, per­haps, Geral­dine Fer­raro’s alleged shady deal­ings and those of her hus­band were known to Roy Cohn. And again, the pos­si­bil­i­ty of a Water­gate-type counter-intel­li­gence oper­a­tion has to be thought of here.

Now a cou­ple of oth­er inter­est­ing asso­ci­a­tions of Geral­dine Fer­raro, both of which can be gleaned from the major news media (I don’t have them with me at this time, because we’re sort of run­ning out of time)... But Geral­dine Fer­raro first got her biggest boost as a con­gress­woman from a fel­low named Joseph Cal­i­fano. Joseph Cal­i­fano was a for­mer Pen­ta­gon offi­cial, a good friend of Alexan­der Haig, par­tic­i­pant in the Bay of Pigs. And Cal­i­fano was dis­missed, basi­cal­ly, as Sec­re­tary of Health, Edu­ca­tion and Wel­fare under Jim­my Carter, because of his sort of reac­tionary stands on abor­tion and oth­er aspects of wom­en’s rights. The fact that when Geral­dine Fer­raro’s bad­ly under-financed con­gres­sion­al cam­paign took off, the fact that it took off with mon­ey secured for her by Joseph Cal­i­fano from the Carter cam­paign is intrigu­ing. (By the way, you can read about that in wire ser­vice accounts of the Fer­raro rise in pol­i­tics right about the time of her nom­i­na­tion as [can­di­date for] Vice-Pres­i­dent.)

Beyond that, Geral­dine Fer­raro’s first press sec­re­tary was the wid­ow of San­to Bar­rio. San­to Bar­rio was a DEA agent who, like so many of the DEA agents, appears to have worked both sides of the nar­cotics ques­tion. Bar­rio, by the way, died, and appears to have been poi­soned, in inves­ti­ga­tion of a case (or per­haps co-oper­a­tion of a case) called, “The Com­pa­ny,” that we’re gonna be deal­ing with when we dis­cuss the inter-rela­tion­ship of orga­nized crime, intel­li­gence and nar­cotics.

So again, none of those asso­ci­a­tions are con­clu­sive in and of them­selves. Togeth­er, it’s an intrigu­ing pic­ture of some of the back­ground of Geral­dine Fer­raro. And in light of Roy Cohn’s devo­tion to Ronald Rea­gan, one has to ask whether per­haps the Rea­gan camp, and Cohn in par­tic­u­lar, were aware of just what Geral­dine Fer­raro and John Zac­aro had to hide. Per­haps that was the rea­son they manip­u­lat­ed them into that posi­tion in the first place. Again, bear in mind the whole Water­gate sce­nario where dirty tricks were used to help deep-six the McGov­ern can­di­da­cy.

That more or less winds things up for the pre­pared por­tion of the broad­cast. I’m gonna review very briefly what we’ve looked at, because it’s been a long sec­tion here.

We began by tak­ing a look at Glo­ria Steinem, her asso­ci­a­tion with a CIA front called “The Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice,” and efforts on the part of Steinem and asso­ciates to block pub­li­ca­tion of that infor­ma­tion — first of all by Ran­dom House in a book called Fem­i­nist Rev­o­lu­tion, then by the Vil­lage Voice, and final­ly by the Heights and Val­ley News, a New York com­mu­ni­ty news­pa­per.

Then we took a look at fur­ther infor­ma­tion con­firm­ing CIA asso­ci­a­tion with the Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice, that from The Espi­onage Estab­lish­ment [16] by Wise and Ross.

Then we next took a look at a more detailed account of the Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice’s work in break­ing up Social­ist youth con­fer­ences abroad. And in par­tic­u­lar, we took a look at the fact that Clay Felk­er, who played a key role in set­ting up Steinem at Ms. [mag­a­zine], was an asso­ciate of Steinem’s with the Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice.

We also looked at the fact that Kather­ine Gra­ham was a prin­ci­pal fig­ure in help­ing to get Ms. [mag­a­zine] start­ed and also a major stock­hold­er.

We then looked at the fact that Glo­ria Steinem’s para­mour for the last 9 years, at least as of 1984, was a man named J. Stan­ley Pot­tinger, impli­cat­ed in an arms smug­gling scam and, more impor­tant­ly, J. Stan­ley Pot­tinger helped block the inves­ti­ga­tions into the assas­si­na­tions of Mar­tin Luther King and Orlan­do Lete­lier.

After that we took a look at the fact that Ms. [mag­a­zine’s] first pub­lish­er, Eliz­a­beth Forsling Har­ris, appears to have been a key fig­ure involved in set­ting up the assas­si­na­tion of Pres­i­dent Kennedy.

After that, we took a look at the back­ground of Kather­ine Gra­ham, a prin­ci­pal fig­ure in the whole Ms. axis. Kather­ine Gra­ham, first of all, was part of an “old boy” intel­li­gence net­work inex­tri­ca­bly involved with the Wash­ing­ton Post. Her hus­band, Phillip Gra­ham, had worked with CIA offi­cial Frank Wis­ner in set­ting up one of the first CIA/media oper­a­tions, called “Oper­a­tion Mock­ing­bird.”

We then looked at how the Wash­ing­ton Post grew, large­ly as a result of assis­tance from the CIA.

We took a look at the intel­li­gence back­ground of Wash­ing­ton Post edi­tor Ben Bradlee, and in turn his asso­ci­a­tions with old chums Richard Helms, CIA Direc­tor at the time of Water­gate, and also a guy named Cord Mey­er, his broth­er-in-law and a key CIA counter-intel­li­gence offi­cial him­self.

We then looked at the fact that Phillip Gra­ham, just before his untime­ly death, became very dis­en­chant­ed with the CIA’s rela­tion­ship to the news media — per­haps more impor­tant­ly, began vocal­iz­ing this dis­en­chant­ment. We then took a look at the fact that this vocal­iz­ing did­n’t last too long because he blew his brains out in August of ’63, three months before John Kennedy had *his* brains blown out.

We also took a look at how [Phillip Gra­ham’s] attor­ney was key intel­li­gence-relat­ed attor­ney Edward Ben­nett Williams, who him­self has pos­si­ble con­nec­tions to the assas­si­na­tion of Kennedy.

Fol­low­ing that, we took a look at the fact that Mary Mey­er, the for­mer wife of Bradlee broth­er-in-law Cord Mey­er, who [Mary Pin­chot Mey­er] was Kennedy’s lover, was mur­dered in the after­math of the Kennedy assas­si­na­tion, and her diary was appro­pri­at­ed by James Angle­ton, CIA Chief of Counter-Intel­li­gence.

We then looked at the pro­posed sce­nario by Debra Davis that the CIA manip­u­lat­ed the Wash­ing­ton Post and used it as a vehi­cle for remov­ing Richard Nixon because, basi­cal­ly, Nixon want­ed to be too big for the sys­tem.

And we then also took a look at the fact that “Deep Throat” appears to have been CIA counter-intel­li­gence offi­cial Richard Ober, again, a long-stand­ing friend of Ben Bradlee at the Wash­ing­ton Post.

Final­ly, we took a look at the close polit­i­cal asso­ci­a­tion between reac­tionary attor­ney Roy Cohn and unsuc­cess­ful Demo­c­ra­t­ic vice-pres­i­den­tial can­di­date Geral­dine Fer­raro.

Con­spir­a­cy Nation — Vol. 9 Num. 46
[CN tran­script of remarks by west coast researcher Dave Emory.] [...con­tin­ued...]

It’s time now to for­mal­ly begin the pre­pared por­tion of tonight’s broad­cast. And we’re going to begin by tak­ing a look at a col­umn that appeared... (By the way, today is Sun­day, July 14th, of 1991.) We’re gonna begin by tak­ing a look at a col­umn that appeared in the San Jose Mer­cury News this past Wednes­day — this past Wednes­day was July 10th of 1991. This is a col­umn by Diane Mason, a cor­re­spon­dent for the St. Peters­burg Times. The San Jose Mer­cury News enti­tled this par­tic­u­lar col­umn, “Like ‘Thel­ma,’ NOW’s Ready To Kick Some.” (And you know what ‘some’ is.) This par­tic­u­lar col­umn reads, in part,

There’s a scene in the movie “Thel­ma and Louise” where Louise (Susan Saran­don) tells Thel­ma (Gina Davis) that she has real­ly changed. “You used to be so sedate,” Louise says. “No more,” answers the now armed and dan­ger­ous Thel­ma. “I’ve had it up to my (exple­tive delet­ed) with ‘sedate.’ ”

At the annu­al con­ven­tion of the Nation­al Orga­ni­za­tion for Women [NOW] held in New York this past week­end, “Thel­ma and Louise” kept pop­ping up — not in per­son, nor as an offi­cial theme, but from the heart. It’s not that NOW has ever been all that sedate, but this con­ven­tion unhar­nessed more “we’ve had it up to here; let’s kick butt” spir­it than I’ve seen in a long time, maybe ever.

Hot items on sale are but­tons that say, “Thel­ma and Louise Live,” and t‑shirts that read “Grad­u­ate of the Thel­ma and Louise Fin­ish­ing School.” Keynote speak­ers Glo­ria Steinem and activist lawyer Flo Kennedy talked about their trav­els and speech­es togeth­er in the ear­ly days of the mod­ern wom­en’s move­ment, call­ing them­selves “the Thel­ma and Louise of the 1970s.”

“Rais­ing Hell and kick­ing (exple­tive delet­ed) is such fun,” said Kennedy, 75. In a wheel­chair, Kennedy jokes that what she does “besides being on my deathbed” is to be out­ra­geous. She is the per­son who coined the oft-quot­ed proverb, “If men could get preg­nant, abor­tion would be a sacra­ment.” Claim­ing all the priv­i­leges of grow­ing old­er and unashamed to be out­spo­ken, Kennedy said that “Women have been rea­son­able too long.”

(Skip­ping down......)

Steinem, with her match­less zing and clar­i­ty, near­ly brought down the house when she spec­u­lat­ed on why the mil­i­tary does­n’t want women in com­bat. “Can you imag­ine what would hap­pen if every wel­fare moth­er, every under­paid wait­ress, every sex­u­al­ly harassed sec­re­tary, had two years of mil­i­tary train­ing?” she asked.

Well it would be, indeed, inter­est­ing to spec­u­late about what might hap­pen, under the cir­cum­stances. How­ev­er I think there are oth­er things to rumi­nate about in con­nec­tion with this par­tic­u­lar devel­op­ment of this atti­tude on the part of ele­ments of the wom­en’s move­ment.

Always a firm believ­er in wom­en’s rights myself, I am at the same time very crit­i­cal of many of the direc­tions that the wom­en’s move­ment has tak­en. And it is my belief and fear that con­sid­er­able ele­ments of the wom­en’s move­ment are allow­ing them­selves to be manip­u­lat­ed by ele­ments of the “far right,” and specif­i­cal­ly, are allow­ing them­selves to be manip­u­lat­ed in the direc­tion of one of the old­est tech­niques for sub­du­ing a giv­en ene­my pop­u­la­tion, name­ly, “divide and con­quer.”

There would be no more pro­found divi­sion that one could effect in Amer­i­can soci­ety or in any oth­er soci­ety than to divide up men and women. You split up the male and female halves of the species, and you have effect­ed as fun­da­men­tal a divi­sion as you can pos­si­bly effect. For one thing, that will have a pro­found effect on the fam­i­ly unit, the basic ele­ment of social­iza­tion. And the more you weak­en the fam­i­ly, the more you strength­en fas­cism. Because once the fam­i­ly itself is weak­ened, the main ele­ment of social­iza­tion is gonna be the tele­vi­sion set. And chil­dren who have basi­cal­ly had their ideas con­cern­ing con­flict res­o­lu­tion shaped by Sat­ur­day morn­ing car­toon shows, Nin­ten­do games, and Arnold Schwarzeneg­ger movies, well that is a soci­ety which when faced with a bind is going to resort to vio­lence in order to resolve the con­flict.

I do not think that divid­ing men and women is a good idea at all. Cer­tain­ly no one should have to sac­ri­fice basic human lib­er­ties for the sake of fit­ting any par­tic­u­lar stereo­type con­cern­ing sex­u­al activ­i­ty or sex-typ­ing. How­ev­er, it should be not­ed in this con­text that most peo­ple’s feel­ings con­cern­ing the oppo­site sex are among the most con­flict­ed emo­tion­al feel­ings and emo­tion­al com­plex­es that they have. Peo­ple’s feel­ings con­cern­ing the par­ent of the oppo­site sex, sib­lings of the oppo­site sex, lovers and/or spous­es of the oppo­site sex — these are things which often have a very pro­found effect on peo­ple’s per­son­al­i­ties. And many peo­ple car­ry the scars and wounds of some of the things they have suf­fered dur­ing the social­iza­tion process for­ward, into life.

It is my fear that an over-empha­sis by any­one — be it the wom­en’s move­ment or some of the forces ranged in reac­tion to the wom­en’s move­ment — an over-empha­sis on male/female con­flicts and dif­fer­ences is very like­ly to wind up exac­er­bat­ing the dif­fer­ences and divi­sions between men and women. Also, [it is] like­ly to fur­ther mobi­lize some of the deep psy­cho­log­i­cal con­flicts many peo­ple of *both* sex­es feel towards mem­bers of the oppo­site sex. And my fear, once again, is that not only ele­ments ranged oppo­site the wom­en’s move­ment, but also ele­ments of the wom­en’s move­ment itself, have, know­ing­ly or oth­er­wise, allowed them­selves to be manip­u­lat­ed in such a direc­tion that they are active­ly pro­mot­ing an unnec­es­sary and coun­ter­pro­duc­tive divi­sion between the sex­es.

Ulti­mate­ly (obvi­ous­ly), men and women are depen­dent upon one anoth­er for the con­tin­ued sur­vival of the species. And as I’ve said before, there could be no more effec­tive way of divid­ing and con­quer­ing than split­ting up men and women.

So at a psy­cho-social lev­el, I think the extent of iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of ele­ments of the wom­en’s move­ment with what looks to me to be a con­tem­po­rary fem­i­nist adap­ta­tion of the old Ram­bo, shoot-’em-up and crack their skull theme — name­ly, this movie “Thel­ma and Louise” — this does not look to me to be a par­tic­u­lar­ly con­struc­tive atti­tude for ele­ments of the wom­en’s move­ment to take. And I’m afraid it is like­ly to sow unnec­es­sary divi­sion and fur­ther weak­en pro­gres­sive forces as we head into 1992, a very impor­tant elec­tion year.

I would also note that there is a sear­ing irony here, to have Glo­ria Steinem rumi­nat­ing as she has here:

Steinem, with her match­less zing and clar­i­ty, near­ly brought down the house when she spec­u­lat­ed on why the mil­i­tary does­n’t want women in com­bat. “Can you imag­ine what would hap­pen if every wel­fare moth­er, every under­paid wait­ress, every sex­u­al­ly harassed sec­re­tary, had two years of mil­i­tary train­ing?” she asked.

Well I would ask in con­nec­tion with that, Can you imag­ine what would hap­pen if the most vis­i­ble and (at least so far) effec­tive fem­i­nist spokesper­son in the Unit­ed States, name­ly Glo­ria Steinem (regard­ed by many as the doyen of Amer­i­can fem­i­nism), can you imag­ine what would hap­pen if she had a back­ground in the Cen­tral Intel­li­gence Agency?

Well you don’t have to imag­ine what would hap­pen. Because, in fact, Glo­ria Steinem has an exten­sive back­ground in the intel­li­gence agen­cies — name­ly, the CIA — and a num­ber of the peo­ple in her milieu have very obvi­ous inter­sec­tions with the Nation­al Secu­ri­ty estab­lish­ment, going up to the present time. Who knows? Per­haps Glo­ria Steinem’s CIA past is not *quite* as far behind her as she might like to have some of us think.

Con­spir­a­cy Nation — Vol. 9 Num. 47 [CN tran­script of remarks by west coast researcher Dave Emory.] [...con­tin­ued...]

In a mis­cel­la­neous archive show enti­tled “Glo­ria in Excel­sis” (sub­ti­tled “The CIA, the Wom­en’s Move­ment, and the News Media”), Glo­ria Steinem’s many intel­li­gence con­tacts were described in con­sid­er­able depth. The main inter­sec­tion between Steinem and the CIA is Steinem’s role as co-founder, and at one point direc­tor, of an orga­ni­za­tion called the Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice: this is a CIA-financed stu­dent orga­ni­za­tion which has been used in a num­ber of dif­fer­ent capac­i­ties. We also not­ed that Ms. mag­a­zine itself, which had Steinem as edi­tor, has as a prin­ci­pal stock­hold­er Kather­ine Gra­ham of the Wash­ing­ton Post. The Gra­ham pub­lish­ing empire, and the Wash­ing­ton Post in par­tic­u­lar, [are] inex­tri­ca­bly linked with the Cen­tral Intel­li­gence Agency, as we looked at in the book Katharine the Great by Debra Davis. It should also be not­ed that the first pub­lish­er of Ms. mag­a­zine was a woman named Eliz­a­beth Forsling Har­ris, who arranged many of the key Dal­las details for Pres­i­dent Kennedy’s motor­cade route.

By way of fur­ther explor­ing Glo­ria Steinem’s CIA back­ground — specif­i­cal­ly, her role with the Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice — we’re gonna take a look at some infor­ma­tion now which comes from a book enti­tled The Pied Piper [26] (sub­ti­tled Allard K. Lowen­stein and the Lib­er­al Dream [26].) This was authored by Richard Cum­mings. The book was pub­lished in hard­cov­er by Grove Press, Inc., in New York. And it’s copy­right 1985.

Of Glo­ria Steinem and her involve­ment with the Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice, and in turn the Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice’s involve­ment with dis­rupt­ing the Vien­na Youth Fes­ti­val (which had very strong Social­ist and Com­mu­nist par­tic­i­pa­tion), author Cum­mings writes as fol­lows:

The Inde­pen­dent Ser­vice for Infor­ma­tion on the Vien­na Youth Fes­ti­val, which was tech­ni­cal­ly found­ed by Glo­ria Steinem and Paul Sig­mund, and which came to be known as the Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice, was fund­ed by the Inde­pen­dence Foun­da­tion, one of the con­duits of CIA funds into the Nation­al Stu­dents Asso­ci­a­tion [NSA]. In 1965, it was the Inde­pen­dence Foun­da­tion which leased its posh offices in Wash­ing­ton to the NSA [Nation­al Stu­dents Asso­ci­a­tion], sign­ing a 15-year rent-free agree­ment.

The Inde­pen­dent Ser­vice dili­gent­ly recruit­ed hun­dreds of Amer­i­can stu­dents to attend the 1959 Vien­na fes­ti­val and lat­er, the 1962 Com­mu­nist-backed Helsin­ki fes­ti­val, to oppose the Com­mu­nists as vig­or­ous­ly as pos­si­ble. Accord­ing to Eugene Ther­oux, who served as chair­man of the met­ro­pol­i­tan New York region chap­ter of NSA in 1958, the Amer­i­cans went “to cause trou­ble.”

I would note here also, more about the activ­i­ties of the Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice, the CIA-financed stu­dent orga­ni­za­tion, co-found­ed by Glo­ria Steinem. And we’re gonna look at, in addi­tion to the glance we just took at the Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice’s work in dis­rupt­ing not only the 1959 Vien­na fes­ti­val but also the 1962 Helsin­ki fes­ti­val, we’re gonna look at plans of some of these same ele­ments and indi­vid­u­als to dis­rupt a con­fer­ence that had been sched­uled for Alge­ria in 1965. This con­fer­ence was can­celled. But had it not been can­celled it might very well have been dis­rupt­ed by the afore­men­tioned Eugene Ther­oux. And one of the peo­ple who is aid­ing Ther­oux was the afore­men­tioned Allard Lowen­stein, a for­mer Dean of Stu­dents for Stan­ford Uni­ver­si­ty, and Glo­ria Steinem pre­sid­ing over the same mileau once again.

Turn­ing again to Richard Cum­mings, The Pied Piper: Allard Lowen­stein and the Lib­er­al Dream, we find,

Anoth­er Com­mu­nist-backed youth fes­ti­val was planned by the IUS for the sum­mer of 1965 in Algiers, and Lowen­stein made prepa­ra­tions to go there in order to dis­rupt it. Plan­ning to join him this time was Paul Ther­oux’s broth­er, Eugene, who as a NSA leader in 1958 had met Lowen­stein and been inspired by him to work on behalf of south­west Africa and black stu­dents in the south. Eugene Ther­oux had been recruit­ed in 1965 by Glo­ria Steinem to work for the CIA front, Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice. They were to be part of a del­e­ga­tion to “cause trou­ble,” as Ther­oux puts it, or to “engage peo­ple in debate,” as he cor­rects him­self.

And again, as not­ed, the 1965 con­fer­ence nev­er came off. But we find some of the same ele­ments: Lowen­stein, Steinem, Ther­oux, et al., plan­ning to dis­rupt this con­fer­ence as they had the 1962 Helsin­ki con­fer­ence and the 1959 con­fer­ence in Vien­na as well.

It should be not­ed that a num­ber of oth­er promi­nent lib­er­als have inter­sect­ed with this same milieu, this CIA milieu which involves Glo­ria Steinem. Among those are William Sloane Cof­fin (sp?), one of the lead­ers of the anti-war move­ment, him­self a chap­lain from Yale Uni­ver­si­ty, him­self also, for sev­er­al years, a CIA agent. We took a look at William Sloan Cof­fin and his inter­sec­tion with the CIA in dis­cus­sions from the book, The Man Who Kept the Secrets [27] (about Richard Helms.) That’s authored by Thomas Pow­ers. William Sloan Coffin’s CIA back­ground is described there. As we shall see, William Sloan Cof­fin inter­sect­ing with the milieu involv­ing peo­ple like Allard Lowen­stein and Glo­ria Steinem and, as we shall see, cur­rent Mass­a­chu­setts con­gress­man Bar­ney Frank, who also worked with Glo­ria Steinem and the CIA-spon­sored Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice.
Return­ing once again to The Pied Piper, by Richard Cum­mings.

It is known that the CIA had estab­lished cen­ters on the cam­pus­es of many Amer­i­can uni­ver­si­ties. In his recruit­ing efforts at some of these uni­ver­si­ties, Lowen­stein was work­ing with peo­ple who had been affil­i­at­ed with the CIA or had par­tic­i­pat­ed in CIA-spon­sored projects. William Sloan Cof­fin at Yale, whom Lowen­stein want­ed to head the sum­mer project, had worked for the CIA. Bar­ney Frank at Har­vard had been with the Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice del­e­ga­tion to Helsin­ki, an oper­a­tion which, by Frank’s own admis­sion, he clear­ly under­stood was CIA-backed. Frank jokes about the role of fel­low del­e­gate Glo­ria Steinem, whom he describes as run­ning around at night­clubs set up by the CIA in Helsin­ki, help­ing to win over Africans from the Com­mu­nists.

And again, this lit­tle sec­tion here is going to go into the afore­men­tioned mis­cel­la­neous archive show, “Glo­ria in Excel­sis: CIA, the Wom­en’s Move­ment, and the News Media.” That is already on file with Archives on Audio [PO Box 170023, San Fran­cis­co, CA 94117–0023; phone: 415–346-1840]. And this par­tic­u­lar sec­tion of the pro­gram is going to go in as an adden­dum to that par­tic­u­lar broad­cast.

Notes –added by risephoenix:

  1. Louise Jones Box 1140 Mid­loth­i­an, Texas 76065
    As of about three years ago, Ms. Jones was still mar­ket­ing, via mail order, the “For­give My Grief” series of books writ­ten by her ex-hus­band, although vol­ume two is no longer avail­able

Penn Jones, Jr. Route 6 Box 356 Wax­a­hachie, TX 75165
As far as we know, Mr. Jones still mar­kets his “For­give My Grief” series and has some copies avail­able. How­ev­er, as he wrote in 1993, “Vol­ume 2 was gone long ago. About the only place they can be found is in old and used book stores. Peo­ple tell me they find them some­times.” Oth­er sources list­ed on this page would also be good for track­ing down copies of each of the four FMG vol­umes — from Fair Play [28]