The Rockefeller Files - Gary Allen

The Great Energy Swindle

"The craziest notion that has hit this country in a long while . . . is that shortages of gas, beef and a lot of other things are bad for the American people. What America needs is more shortages" —James Reston (CFR), New York Times

Having set the wheels in motion for establishing international controls over food and population, the Rockefellers then made their move in the all-important energy field. As Dr. Medford Evans has noted: "Energy makes the world go 'round." And he adds the obvious, but crucial fact: "Who controls what, makes the world go round controls the world." In other words, when the New World Order controls the planet's energy, the world dictatorship will be established. Syndicated columnist Paul Scott informs us:

"Once [the] concept of international policy control over food is accepted by UN members, Kissinger then plans to move to establish this same concept over oil and eventually all energy in the world."

You will recall that in the last chapter we quoted a report by Mr. Scott that Kissinger believes that by controlling energy, especially oil, the Insiders can control nations and their financial systems; and that such international controls of oil and monetary systems could bring about a world government within the next five years.

But according to the Rockefeller-Kissinger game plan, before oil can be internationalized, there must be a crisis which threatens to bring about a worldwide depression. Remember, "crises . . . are the great federators."

There can be little doubt that the current international petroleum crisis has been deliberately contrived. It was engineered from start to finish. The planning involves typical bureaucratic idiocy which may or may not have been intended to have the result which it inevitably did; and to conspiratorial planning by Rockefeller agents who at all times knew exactly what they were doing.

Contrary to the incantations of the doomsayers, America is not running out of oil. As Don Oakley of the Copley News Service notes:

"For every one of the billions upon billions of barrels of petroleum the United States has consumed since Colonel Drake drilled the first well in 1859, at least another barrel remains in the ground."

According to John Knight, editorial Chairman of the Knight newspapers:

"A figure of 100 billion barrels [of oil reserves] is offered as conservative, although some studies place the figure at several hundred billion barrels excluding shale oil."

Get that? We are sitting on several hundred billion barrels excluding shale. Yet even today the United States consumes only about six billion barrels of oil a year.

Shale oil is oil locked up in porous rock. The Interior Department estimates our "easily-recoverable" shale oil at eighty billion barrels, and shale oil recoverable with intensive technology at six hundred billion barrels. The six hundred billion barrels that appear to be recoverable are enough to last one hundred years at the present rate of consumption. However, most US shale resources are on federal lands in Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah. None is yet being produced commercially because the federal government has been very slow—some say suspiciously slow—to permit development of this crucial resource.

We are literally surrounded by oil. U.S. News & World Report stated as far back as November 22, 1971 that our total offshore oil reserves amount to approximately 780 billion barrels. This does not, of course, include the estimated twenty billion barrels of oil in Alaska. Counting only the offshore oil, the Alaskan reserves and the easily recovered shale oil, the United States has 880 billion barrels of oil reserves. At the current rate of consumption, my calculator says that this is enough oil to last beyond the year 2121. That is a lot longer than any of us is going to last. Surely we can produce alternative forms of power and energy in that amount of time!

Why is it, asks economist Tom Rose, that after over three hundred years of continuous material progress in America, without fuel shortages, we should suddenly stumble upon an energy crisis in 1973? If America has abundant fuel supplies, why aren't they abundantly available? Could it be, asks Professor Rose, that the historical process by which these supplies have been made available has changed? He observes:

"Historically, energy in America has been supplied by profit-seeking private entrepreneurs and profit-oriented corporations. These risk-takers have invested millions and millions of dollars every year in their long-range plans to supply the ever-growing energy needs of the American people. Historically, they have adjusted their production plans to price signals received through the competitive marketplace. For over three centuries this free market process has been eminently successful. And competing sources of energy have always been in abundant supply at reasonable prices."

In recent decades, however, the bureaucrats and the politicians have thrust themselves into the market process. As Professor Rose notes,

"During the last two or three decades—especially since 1955 when the FPC (Federal Power Commission) started controlling the wellshead price of gas and oil—energy suppliers have faced non-market signals . . . Neither the Mideast war nor American prosperity has caused our present energy crisis. It was caused by political meddling."

That last point is so crucial to understanding the mess we are in that we want to repeat it. Fuelish, oil-consuming Americans didn't cause the energy crisis. The Mideast war didn't cause it. Our growing prosperity didn't cause it. Political meddling did. (by some of the brightest "planners" around, we might add)

Have you heard the Rockefellers, Standard Oil execs, or even other petroleum countries screaming bloody murder about the fact that a bunch of paper-shuffling bureaucrats have so distorted the realities of supply and demand that we now face a worldwide crisis? Yes, Mobil has run a few ads hinting at this. But, if the Rockefellers really wanted to demonstrate what a palpable fraud the energy crisis really is, they would be showing 60-minute documentary specials on ABC, NBC and CBS. Instead, these networks have produced a spate of specials to bamboozle the public into believing we are down to our last gallon of Exxon.

One of the major excuses for the massive interference by government in the development and marketing of energy resources has been the ecology movement. The "crisis" used to strangle development of offshore oil began with the Santa Barbara oil spill in 1969. The "Liberal" media heralded the Santa Barbara spill as a greater disaster than the bubonic plague. Television news watchers were treated every night to heart-rending close ups of gooey gulls covered with crude oil.

A study of the Santa Barbara spill was subsequently undertaken by forty leading scientists under the direction of Dr. Dale Straughan, a marine biologist from the University of Southern California. This $250,000 study produced a 900 page report which declared: "Not only had overall damage by the spill been greatly overestimated, but where damage had been done, nature had returned it to normal."

The conclusions of Dr. Straughan and her team became one of the biggest secrets since the whereabouts of judge Crater. The Brinkleys, Cronkites, and others who had made a national horror story of the unfortunate spill were so busy beating the drums to stop all offshore drilling that they didn't have time to cover the less dramatic, truthful story of what really happened in Santa Barbara. They were too preoccupied with promoting a shortage-producing power grab by government to report that out of approximately fourteen thousand offshore wells which have been drilled, there have been a grand total of three—yes, three-serious oils spills.

The phony propaganda about the Santa Barbara spill was the excuse used by the Nixon Administration to cancel leases and strangle offshore oil and gas drilling, not only in Santa Barbara Channel, but around the nation. Just as it had done time and time again, the Administration surrendered to the cries of the mob and kept silent about the known facts. While consumption of petroleum and gas was jumping every year, the Nixon poohbahs put the lid on expansion of supply. Anybody who has plodded his way through elementary economics knows that if demand increases while supplies and prices remain the same, the inevitable result will be a shortage. The masters of Nixonomics knew what they were doing, and they did it anyway.

But stopping further offshore drilling was not the only plus from the Santa Barbara oil spill for the creators of our shortages. In the wake of this "ecological disaster," Senator Henry Jackson of Washington was able to put through his oft-defeated bill to establish a national policy on environmental protection and to create the Council on Environmental Quality. The law seemed innocent enough at first glance. But, as Dan Smoot relates in The Business End of Government:

". . it was a sleeper, as activist attorneys exultantly called it after it was safely on the statute books. This legislation provided the activists with legal standing to make court attacks against major business activities throughout the United States . . . . "

The environmental I policy law left the definition of environment so vague and open-ended that it gave federal courts almost limitless power to veto the actions of executive agencies and the laws of Congress. No business can initiate a major activity without first dealing with a government agency of some kind—about permits, licenses, rights-of-way leases, land leases, use of public thoroughfares, and so on. Any group of two or more people willing to post a small bond and engage an attorney can bring court action against a government agency, alleging that, in granting permission for a business activity, the agency failed to file an adequate environmental-impact statement as required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. They can demand a court injunction to halt the business activity until the government agency files an adequate impact statement and suggests an alternative approach.

The Jackson Bill, which Richard Nixon refused to veto, was used to delay the construction of the Alaskan pipeline for an incredible five years. Under the guise of keeping the tundra virginal for the dainty hooves of caribou, the ecomaniacs tied up the pipeline project in the courts. A pipeline across the frozen tundra of central Alaska is about as conspicuous as a thread stretching from the eighth to the ninth hole of a golf course-and about as harmful to the game. But the Jackson Environment Law gave the radicals not only respectability in the courts, but a legal club that declared any developers must be assumed guilty until they proved their innocence.

Stung by public outrage, Congress finally acted to allow the contractors to begin construction of the pipeline. So after a five-year delay, we can look forward to crude pouring out the end of that pipeline sometime in 1978. But had the Nixon Administration not gone smilingly down to defeat at the hands of the ecomaniacs, Alaskan crude would now be flowing into refineries at the rate of one million barrels a day—which just happens to be almost the same amount that the US has been importing from the Middle East. Needless to say the Sierra Clubbers are about as popular in Alaska as Bobby Riggs at a baby shower for Gloria Steinem.

One of the most important moves in the effort to create artificial shortages of petroleum occurred in June 1970, when President Nixon issued an Executive Order creating the Environmental Protection Agency. A preliminary Report on the activities of the 9,000 bureaucrats in the EPA has now been issued by the House Appropriation Subcommittee. It declares:

"The subcommittee is convinced that the Environmental Protection Agency has played a major role in the current energy crisis. The approval by the agency of overly restrictive state plans, which call for the meeting of primary and secondary ambient air standards at the same time, has resulted in the need for the industry to convert from coal to low sulfur fuels. This increased requirement for oil and gas has been a major contributor to our current fuel problems."

In addition, the automobile emission control standards imposed by the agency have greatly increased the requirements for gasoline, which is also in short supply and will probably require rationing.

Mr. Nixon's Environmental Protection Agency, in the name of controlling air pollution, has forced auto manufacturers to pile all kinds of gas-eating gadgets onto our motors. The net result has been a drop of at least twenty percent in mileage, and considering the near impossibility of keeping such engines properly tuned, the loss may be as high as fifty percent.

According to Shirley Scheibla, Barron's Washington editor, the gadgets applied to our cars by the EPA now resulting the use of 300,000 extra barrels of gasoline a day; by 1980, the controls will require the consumption of an added two million gallons of gasoline a day. Meanwhile, federally required reduction of lead in gasoline has reduced fuel efficiency by another twenty percent. And no two experts even seem to agree on whether the required gadgetry actually decreases pollution. Some think that the net effect is an increase. We don't pretend to know, but it seems to us that if our car is burning up to twice as much gasoline, the net amount of pollutants coming out the exhaust pipe has probably increased.

The ten thousand independent oil companies in the US drill 80 percent of the wells. Government or "people-control" of the oil industry would, in practice, mean Rockefeller control over their competitors. It would mean the death knell for the independents and create One Big Oil Company under the sway of the House of Rockefeller. Yes, competition is still a sin.

If you still have any lingering doubts about the Rockefellers promoting the energy shortage for power and profit, consider the fact they have financed their alleged enemies, the ecomaniacs.

Incredible, you say? Well, it's true. And for reasons other than the Rockefellers' love of blue sky and falling profits. The environmental legislation pushed through Congress was based on lobbying by innumerable "experts." Putting together these "citizens lobbies" takes lots of money; and contrary to the hokey publicity from most such groups, the dollars do not come from school children donating their milk money—or even from college students foregoing a beer. The money to "fight" the entrenched interests comes largely from those same entrenched interests, and the foundations which they have created. It represents the old ploy of Bre'r Rabbit begging Bre'r Bear not to throw him into the briar patch. Only in this case, Bre'r Rabbit is the Rockefellers and the briar patch is socialistic controls. Remember, more controls mean worse shortages; and when oil and gas are scarce, prices go right through the skylight. [Note: About one-third of the cost of a gallon of gas goes to the oil company.]

When gasoline reaches one dollar a gallon, as most experts anticipate, Standard Oil's share will be a lot bigger than when you could filler up at 34.9 cents.

During Congressional Hearings on the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, none other than J.C. Harrar, then president of the Rockefeller Foundation (and a CFR member, of course), advocated the United Nations developing an international program for dealing with worldwide pollution. Other lobbyists who joined the clamor for more government controls were financed by he Ford Foundation, which is more closely interlocked with the Rockefellers than two teenagers in the last row of drive-in movie. Edward Rogers, general counsel of the Ford-backed Environmental Defense Fund, actually advocated international control of automobiles.

The testimony at such hearings and the lists of those presenting it are monotonously repetitious. In one way or another all those appearing favored an increase in federal control over the "environment", which boils down to federal controls over almost everything and everybody. Some witnesses, less sophisticated than their mentors, boldly called for the destruction of the capitalist system; others suggested that regional or international planning agencies are needed to cope with pollution.

The loud-mouth Marxists have relatively little impact on Congress, of course. It is the corporate socialists in the Brooks Brothers suits who are really dangerous. They bring with them the credibility, prestige and financial backing of the Rockefeller complex, and you can be sure Congress listens to them very closely.

Although it seems to have been around forever, the environmental movement appeared on the national scene almost overnight. Five years ago, not one person in a thousand had even heard the word ecology. But suddenly all of us were supposed to panic at the thought of the slimy hand of pollution suffocating us as we sleep.

The major bankroller of this "spontaneous" movement were the numerous Rockefeller foundations, the Rockefeller-controlled Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller controlled Carnegie Foundation and the Rockefeller interlocked Mellon (Gulf Oil) foundations. Among the most vigorous public advocates were Roberto Anderson of Atlantic Richfield (and the CFR) and Henry Ford II of the Ford Motor Company (and the CFR).

The number one piggy bank for the -ecology movement has been the Ford Foundation, almost all of whose trustees are members of the Rockefellers' CFR. It has poured millions of dollars into hustling population planning and environmental controls of every sort.

The Ford Foundation gave $2 million to the Energy Policy Project to aid it in the creation of a federal energy policy. For that sum of money, it expected results, and it got them. Ford also gave $309,000 to the Center for Law in the Public Interest and $162,000 to the Royal Institute of International Affairs (the English counterpart of our CFR) to study the role of oil companies in the energy market!

The most effective organization in using law suits to force Zero Economic Growth on the country—by blocking construction of refineries, airports, shopping centers, housing and every other form of development—is the Sierra Club. The Sierra Club was for many years a respected group honestly promoting conservation and preservation of forests and wildlife, until it was taken over by political radicals. Now, using the Environmental Protection Act, it has used the courts to throw hundreds of thousands of workers out of jobs.

The Sierra Club is the very symbol of the ecology movement's fight against the "big corporations". Supplying the funds for its allegedly humanitarian crusade is you guessed it!—the Ford Foundation. Ford made grants to the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund of $98,000 in 1971 and $143,000 in 1972, and the Rockefellers have also donated to the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund.

Next to the Ford Foundation, the leading founders of the ecology movement are the various Rockefeller foundations. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Rockefeller Family Fund are all contributing heavily to the environmental revolution from which Standard Oil is profiting so handsomely by driving petroleum prices into orbit.

We realize that this sounds like something out of Ripley's Believe It or Not. But here are the facts:

  • In 1969, the Rockefeller Foundation donated $250,000 to the Academy of National Sciences; $200,000 to the American Conservation Association; $60,000 to the National Audubon Society; and, $25,000 to the Conservation Fund.
  • In 1970, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund gave $500,000 to the Population Council. The Rockefeller Foundation gave ecology grants of $10,000 to the New School for Social Research, and $10,000 to the Population Reference Bureau.
  • In 1971, the Rockefeller Foundation gave $300,000 to Citizens for a Quieter City; $23,200 to Columbia University Center for Policy Research; $500,000 to the Conservation Foundation; $152,000 to the Environmental Law institute; $50,000 in ecology funds to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and, $1,000,000 to the Population Council,
  • In 1972, the Rockefeller Family Fund gave $10,000 to the National Resources Defense Council; and two grants, one for $17,750 and one for $25,000, to the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund. The Rockefeller Foundation donated $25,000 to M.I.T. for environmental studies, and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund donated $ 5oo,ooo to the American Conservation Association.
  • And, in 1973, the Rockefeller Foundation gave $500,000 to the Population Council and $25,000 to the Population Crisis Committee. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund donated $250,000 to the Population Council, $10,000 to the Population Council, and $25,000 to the Population Institute.

It should be mentioned that it is illegal for foundations to finance political activities. If the laws were enforced, these foundations would lose their tax exemption. But don't hold your breath until this happens. The IRS's sauce for your goose is not sauce for the Rockefellers' gander.

Typical of the bilge pumped out by the organizations bankrolled by the Rockefellers is this Los Angeles Times report of August 27,1975:

"Americans will have to eat less, switch from cars to bicycles and adopt other belt-tightening measures in the next decade because the energy shortage is here to stay, according to a paper published by the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies. The paper's author, Abraham M. Sirkin, a former member of the State Department's policy and planning staff, predicts the cutbacks will produce a generation of healthier Americans."

The Aspen Institute, we hope you will not be surprised to learn, is funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

The Rockefellers are not the only oil interests helping to finance the ostensibly anti-oil ecology movement. Major donors have been Gulf Oil Foundation, the Humble Companies Charitable Trust, the Mobil Foundation and the Union Oil of California Foundation. All, of course, are either Rockefeller-controlled or interlocked with the Rockefellers through the CFR. These groups in essence paid for the legislation which has killed the mileage obtained by automobiles. But, the ultimate stakes are much bigger—using the continued energy crisis as the rationale for the creation of the New World Order.

Ralph Nader, the man who once told an audience that what we need is "somekind of communism" is also bankrolled by the Rockefeller network in his attempt to destroy the free enterprise system. Among the groups financing the Caped Crusader are the ubiquitous Ford Foundation and the Field Foundation, both CFR interlocked. Nader is not really fighting the Establishment. He works for it. According to a Business Week article reprinted in the Congressional Record of March 10, 1971, John D. Rockefeller IV is even an advisor to Nader.

Naturally, the shortages of petroleum which have been artificially created in the US has made us dependent on foreign oil. In order to calm an angry public, there has been much talk of taking off the political restrictions and achieving "energy independence". It is strictly a smokescreen. While talking independence, the Rockefeller conspirators are planning to keep us dependent on foreign oil. After all, they own or market most of that foreign oil.

In the Wall Street Journal for March 6, 1974, Henry Kissinger admitted the talk about "energy independence" was a fraud. Project Independence is merely a weigh station on the road to a new Project Interdependence and at the World Energy Conference in Detroit during September 1974, President Ford, speaking without any detectable ventriloquist's strings, declared:

"I call on all of you to respond to the challenge and to propose to the world your recommendations for a global energy strategy. Whether you call it Project Interdependence, or some other name, is not the essential point."

It is the "interdependence" which is essential. The created crises in energy, food, and population are straw men, set up by the Insiders so they can be knocked down and a "New World Order" can be established. Yes, crises are the great federator.

Kissinger's plan to maneuver international policy control over oil is beginning to emerge, and, as Paul Scott notes, it "is one of the most intriguing stories of our times."

According to Paul Scott, officials at the World Bank have estimated that the flow of Western dollars to oil producers in the Middle East is "now running at the rate of $100 billion a year" or more than all of US investments abroad. To put it in the most stark terms, the Middle East oil producers are accumulating so much wealth from the Western industrial nations that they will be able—if current prices continue—to buy them out by 1980"

With OPEC gaining control of most of the world's oil and money, Kissinger sees a confrontation situation developing between oil producers and consumers, reports Scott, out of which will arise the internationalization of oil production, pricing and distribution. It would be the ultimate monopoly.

Very conceivably the Arab sheiks are being set up to trigger a war in the Middle East. Remember, Kissinger is already on record as stating that we might invade the Middle East if oil is embargoed. With the super-sophisticated military equipment we are providing the sheiks the war would be a bloody one, especially if it, like the arranged wars in Vietnam and Korea before it, is fought under the UN banner. The end result, of course, would be the internationalization of oil.

Again, only the naive will think that the Rockefellers are having their agent Kissinger arrange the "internationalization of oil" so that the Oilbucks can be stripped of their holdings. The prospects of such a scenario should make any independent oil developer in the world worry. Competition is still a sin, and monopoly is still the name of the Rockefeller game.

While Armegeddon is being set up in the Middle East, the Rockefellers are preparing to stick John Q. Taxpayer with the bill for the world's oil deficits. A story in the Chicago Tribune of October 2, 1974, is headlined "US To Back New Way to Foot World Oil Bills. Secretary of the Treasury William Simon, an international banker and CFR member, told leaders of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund that if "developing nations" were having difficulty paying the oil tab, they need look no farther than the American taxpayer. "If there is a clear need for additional international lending mechanisms, the United States will support their establishment," he said.

Under the Kissinger-Rockefeller plan, Americans will pay the bills in more ways than one. Without a peep of complaint from the kept press, Kissinger met with members of the International Energy Agency and agreed to share our oil with them in case the Rockefellers stage another Arab oil boycott. Unkept columnist Paul Scott reveals:

"Under the oil-sharing plan worked out recently in Brussels by the US and 11 other major industrial countries, for example, domestically produced oil in the US for the first time in our history would be shared and allocated in case of another Middle East oil embargo.

"Precise allocations would be worked out by a quasi-independent management organization set up within the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, an economic consultative grouping of leading non-Communist industrial nations."

Most puzzling and alarming part of this Kissinger oil plan is that it in effect puts the "triggering device" in the hands of the Middle East oil producers—thus increasing the power of their oil weapon and making it more tempting for the Arabs to use. For control over US domestic oil to pass into the hands of an international body, all the Middle East oil producers now need do is impose their oil embargo as they did during the 1973 Arab-Israeli war.

The control over agriculture and energy as part of the Rockefeller-Kissinger strategy for looting the country is the core of the Insiders' plan to force Zero Economic Growth on the country.

Leading the call for ZEG is a group of international establishmentarians called The Club of Rome. The Club is described by author Ovid Demaris in Dirty Businesses as "an organization of distinguished industrialists, bankers and scientists from twenty-five countries." The Club was created at the Rockefeller family's private estate at Bellagio, Italy. The Club put out a report which warned that, unless the standard of living of the developed nations was severely restricted, "a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity was inevitable."

Here we have fifty key businessmen and international bankers gathering under the auspices of the Rockefeller family and coming to the conclusion that production in America should be reduced! Again, understand that it is your standard of living they are proposing to decimate, not their own.

Naturally, the controlled press did everything possible to legitimize the scare stories concocted by the Roman clubbers. For example, here is how Time magazine portrayed their predictions in a feature story on January 24, 1972:

"The furnaces of Pittsburgh are cold; the assembly lines of Detroit are still. In Los Angeles, a few gaunt survivors of a plague desperately till freeway center strips, backyards and outlying fields, hoping to raise a subsistence crop. London's offices are dark, its docks deserted. In the farm lands of the Ukraine, abandoned tractors litter the fields; there is no fuel for them. The waters of the Rhine, Nile and Yellow rivers reek with pollutants."

The message from these fright peddlers appeared in a 197 page paperback which was published in eighteen editions and made available in twenty-three languages, including Serbo-Croatian, Finnish, and Thai. The Insiders who run the show know that the only way to achieve surrender by consent is to frighten Americans into supinely accepting their plans.

Before continuing, however, we feel duty bound to assure you that, despite the huzzahs from the chorus of the CFR-controlled media, the Rockefeller-sponsored study," titled The Limits To Growth, was (and is) considered absurd by informed demographers. Wilfred Beckerman, the respected professor of political economy at the University of London, went so far as to call the book "a brazen piece of impudence." (Which is the harshest language you will ever hear a proper Englishman use.)

Our only hope for survival, the ecological fright peddlers assure us, is ZPG combined with ZEG. America has already reached Zero Population Growth, but putting enough brakes on our economy to achieve Zero Economic Growth has been a hay-burner of a different hue. Only direct government intervention can assure ZEG as advocated by the Club of Rome.

Clickety-clack, clickety-clack, the message is being dutifully parroted by the Establishment media as its propaganda machines grind out the doctrine of survival through a lowered standard of living. Features like "Running Out of Everything" (Newsweek) and "Time For A New Frugality" (Time) have been appearing with regularity in the slick weeklies. Much of the propaganda has been geared towards making Americans feel guilt for their prosperity and shame for their alleged greed and profligacy.

So what is the solution? There is only one way to Stop the profit system and that is by direct government intervention (which can take a wide variety of forms taxation, regulation, allocation, rationing, etc.). The two words most often used to describe such governmental actions are of course, socialism and fascism.

But, proponents of socialism within the Establishment are careful never, ever, to use the word. While outspoken radicals are less hypocritical, Liberal politicians, bureaucrats, and media managers are aware that mainstream Americans know what socialism means, and they want no part of it. So the Establishment salesmen for socialism, who for thirty years have been implementing it while the radicals talk about it, always use code words and euphemisms. Instead of calling socialism or fascism by their right names, the Establishment prefers terms like "planning".

The question is: Who is going to plan your life, you or the Frankenstein monster created by the Rockefellers, called Big Brother?

If the Rockefeller-CFR clique has an official spokesman, it is James Reston, leading columnist of the New York Times whose syndicated column appears in hundreds of papers across the nation. Read Reston and you can keep up with the latest Rockefeller-Establishment line. In 1973, Reston wrote:

"The craziest notion that has hit this country in a long while—and we've had quite a few nutty notions lately—is that shortages of gas, beef and a lot of other things are bad for the American people.

"What America really needs is more shortages. It is not our shortages but our surpluses that are hurting us. Too much gas, too much booze, and—fire me tomorrow!—too much newsprint are our problem . . ."

Yes, you read that correctly. James Reston of the New York Times says that what we need are more shortages. Like playing for a losing football team, shortages build character. The more we are deprived, the better off we will be! Of course, the worthies who insist you must take a hacksaw to your own standard of living are themselves living very well. And they expect to continue to do so, thank you.

The whole ploy is such obvious hogwash that not even P.T. Barnum would have dared try to peddle it. Of course, times were different when he said there's a sucker born every minute. He didn't know they could be created even quicker—if the denizens of government, education, and the media were all in on the plot.

We are not running out of energy.

But if the American people swallow the phony Rockefeller-inspired and financed propaganda, the doomsday prediction of depression and famine will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we can be panicked into surrendering our freedom in the name of survival, the socialist-fascist dictatorship of the Rockefellers' New World Order will be a reality.