Cutting Through the Thicket of Think Tanks that Tighten Rule Over Humanity

By Mark Anderson / Stop the Presses News & Commentary

Assessing what can be fairly called the “Bilderberg network” necessarily involves probing today’s widespread society of think tanks, frequently called “World Affairs Councils” or this or that “Global Institute.”

There are hundreds if not thousands of these outfits around the world. Theirs is a realm of single-minded authoritarianism window-dressed as a stately bastion of impartial scholarship, diversity and tolerance.

But at the core is a melding of mandated “open markets” and “open borders,” festooned with support for “representative democracy,” but undergirded with extreme social and cultural liberalism—to include, unbeknownst to even the most astute observers, widespread support in these elite circles for the radical gay-pride movement, under a “human rights” mantra, of course.

Simply put, capitalism is no longer synonymous with conservative Republicans or even conservatives in general; rather, affluent liberals of an extreme stripe infesting these think tanks have set aside socialism and are taking up the capitalist cause—in a strange dialectic that few have noticed—and these revolutionaries dress nice and talk smart.

They’re “experts"—academicians, or “fellows," as they prefer to call themselves. And they’re highly influential—since they manage to avoid media scrutiny and instead are a heavily relied-upon news source or even a partner with the media. Sometimes, these "think-tankers" become commentators, anchors and reporters themselves. And the revolving door between the two spheres is well-oiled.

The apparent purpose of this intertwining of social-liberal extremism with a particularly corrosive brand of capitalism, monopolist-capitalism to be exact, is to promote “open borders” even regarding human relations, given the organized gay movement’s incessant attacks on the traditional family which, in turn, sap the institution of marriage, set the stage for curbing the birthrate and make global management more manageable.

That helps explain the strident secularism and apparent atheism that’s evident among such world-affairs elites. Indeed, spiritual dimensions are kept out of their political-materialist “deliberations” altogether—other than an unbreakable “faith” in monopoly-capitalism and hard-ball geo-politics. For, you see, these neo-liberals who want to fuse capitalism with far-left social extremism—but wail on and on about the “threat” of the “far right”—don’t want real peace any more than they want socialism, other than certain socialist programs that aid in controlling the masses.

So, even though some in this world-affairs crowd will wave an olive branch and profess support for Iran and its nuclear deal, to prevent that Persian state from producing even one nuclear weapon aboard a missile, these think-tank wonks will turn around and preach about “the Russian threat” against the West and the need for sanctions against Russia and serious military exercises, including missile batteries, very close to Russia's border. Meanwhile, the world-affairs clique gladly supports Israel’s brutal garrison state that terrorizes and kills scores of Palestinians. Since supporting Zionism is a given, the Israeli state can do no wrong, which is another reason that Iran, said to be an intractable foe of Israel, is watched so closely.

This disjointed worldview spawns cookie-cutter corporatized people who enter modern academia and become such think-tank “fellows”—brainwashed to live for a one-world cosmopolitan system that knows no enduring loyalties other than to itself. Thus, the intellectually standardized “mass man” is born, rootless and ignorant of his own ignorance. An educated derelict who kneels at the throne of mammon.

Whatever’s “true” to him mainly comes from snooty journals like “Foreign Policy,” or “Foreign Affairs” whose articles needn’t have bylines anymore, since preaching a monologue for one-world rule, “free trade” and “free markets” in the modern vernacular could just as well be typed by some machine programmed to simply repeat globalist rhetoric. One of the biggest questions is why those inhabiting modern foreign affairs institutes even bother acting anymore like they have truly divergent views, real debates and actual solutions to anything. If something cannot be monetized, it's of little importance to them.

That's why, as noted, their message, ironically, is a monologue from many mouths that basically goes like this: Bow to the power of debt-based money, the banks and the corporations and do not think you have an actual life of your own. “Your” government is ours and you're always on-call. "We" might need your blood or your son’s or daughter’s to liberate some distant sand trap so we can take their oil, steal their land, kill their kids, or put a central bank there. In the meantime, watch your sports channels, sip your gruel and wait for the next news segment on TV so you can be told what to think by Us, which precludes ever learning HOW to think.

Not surprisingly, this same uppity crowd snipes against anything that smacks of grassroots living or grassroots governance—things which start with the family and extend into populist notions of controlling one’s own economic, political, social and, yes, spiritual destiny. Even a referendum like Brexit is too much for them, not just due to the unwanted outcome that they're trying to sabotage (see the elite response to Brexit further down in this article) but due to the very idea of the people choosing anything for themselves beyond a pizza or some bought-off pre-selected candidate who most often comes from the same elite circles, which is what they mean by "representative democracy"—a representative of the elite acting like we have a democratic system.

And, accordingly, these institute “fellows”— backed by gilded foundations and endowments where the super-rich have for generations stashed their cash away from the tax man that surely taxes the rest of us—go to great lengths to spread the dark libel that anything just far enough to the right of them could only be destined to end in . . . wait for it . . . Nazism!

From some of their pronouncements, you’d think that without their globalist preaching through slick journals, op-ed columns, guest pundit roles on TV news (e.g. Charles Krauthammer) or as news anchors (e.g. Fareed Zakaria), we’d all be wearing Hitler moustaches by now if we dare grow even a little tired of their deafening calls for endless nation-building and militarism.

This is the bogeyman that they often trot out whenever they seem to be losing their grip: Any ideas that turn rightward are a surefire path to the hell of Europe's Nazi past, which means in their eyes that anything or anyone that carries a populist message is simply an angry, confused, disgruntled snake-oiler telling the dispossessed "what they want to hear and exploiting their fears." Put another way, anyone who opposes THEM is a would-be Nazi who simply hasn't adapted to the New World Order and if only populists would stop acting like they have sound arguments (which many do) and bow to the NWO, then all would be "well."

WHO & WHERE IN WORLD OF THINK TANKS

All of the above can be summed up in two words:

“Plutocracy”—rule by the rich.
“Oligarchy”—rule by the few over the many

Both are smoothly blended into a seductive swill served up regularly at the programs sponsored by the 100 World Affairs Councils operating in 40 states and Puerto Rico under the umbrella of the World Affairs Councils of America (WACA), based in Washington.

The overall goal here is to align and co-mingle corporate, banking, and industrial interests with government policy, including “deep-state” affairs, while partnering with major media personnel who, rather than objectively reporting on these world affairs outfits, become part of the clique.

The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, or CCGA—evidently the most active of such U.S.-based think tanks—has been especially busy, having held its first-ever Forums on Global Cities this and last summer, where the underlying goal, as professed through cryptically worded speeches and reports, is to govern cities in a manner that sidesteps and erodes the authority of the nation states.

So, if the national leadership wants better border security, the would-be mutineers operating today’s “global cities” rebel and say “open borders” and “sanctuary cities”; or if a national leader doesn’t buy the common “climate change” narrative, the global-cities mayors arrogate themselves to “lead the nation” in a different direction and “battle climate change,” contrary to national policy.

This fall, the CCGA (formerly, the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations) continues to feature an array of programs that reveal much of what this and other satellite outfits that fit the “Bilderberg mold” are thinking and planning.

DOES ‘GLOBAL BRITAIN’ NEGATE BREXIT?

For example, speaking in Chicago to the CCGA on Oct. 2nd, Sir Alan Duncan, Britain’s minister of state for Europe and the Americas, sounded the alarm for fellow elites about the populist revolt expressed through the June 2016 “Brexit” vote that calls for Britain to exit the European Union.

“Brexit was only about Brits expressing how they want their country to work, not to step back from its role in the world,” Duncan opined, while claiming: “The importance of the UK’s global role was one place where the ‘leave’ and ‘remain’ [voters wanting to leave or remain in EU] converged”—as if he could magically assess the attitudes of all voters in greater Britain about the UK’s global role.

“No one in the UK believes that it makes sense to turn inwards,” Duncan presumptuously stated—stressing the melodramatic mantra that even the slightest retreat from world-wide Western hegemony is an intolerable slap in the face to the post-World War II “rules-based international order,” formed in 1944 at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, at a conference that spawned the World Bank, IMF and the overall banking and trade infrastructure that largely serves the super-rich.

Perhaps most notably, Duncan made it clear that while “leaving the EU” may be the wish of a sufficient majority of UK voters, at the end of the day, the “global values” undergirding that “rules-based order” help cement a marriage that’s not easily dissolved.

“We’re leaving the EU,” he said, “but we [the UK and EU] . . . believe deeply in the same values—peace, democracy, freedom and the rule of law.” Moreover, Duncan said the UK should demote self-interest and “continue playing a leading role in advancing European prosperity and security.”

Then, in what sounds like a plan that runs contrary to the wishes of pro-Brexit voters, he announced that the EU and UK have rolled out “our Future Partnership Paper on foreign policy, defense, security and development”—an ambitious “new framework for future security, law enforcement and criminal justice cooperation between the EU and the UK.”

He added: “NATO will continue to be a cornerstone of our defense,” without mentioning the current creation of a European Union army in which Britain and its assets are deeply involved, putting the entire Brexit process, which is already tortuously slow, at further risk.

Duncan curiously added, “The UK is the only European country to meet NATO’s 2%,” referring to the NATO rule that member states contribute 2% of their GDP to the alliance. Yet his definition of the UK as a “European country” is no slip of the tongue; rather, it’s a candid reminder that world elites simply will not internalize the fact that the Brexit vote happened.

Reserving some ire for President Trump—by condemning Trump’s skeptical position on the Paris climate pact as “a case in point” where national and presumably “superior” international rules collide—Duncan briefly lurched into the “global cities” framework by noting that he and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel are “tight” in all of this. “We discussed this city’s efforts to tackle climate change,” he said.

Duncan also named North Korea, Iran and Russia as the chief states that need to be closely watched through the internationalist lens, though he did express trust in Iran adhering to the JCPOA pact that limits its nuclear program, to prevent the Persian state from developing a nuclear weapon. However, he labeled Russia as “more aggressive, more authoritarian and more nationalist” than the world community cares to tolerate, as if internationalism cannot possibly be authoritarian or aggressive.

Duncan, who noted the UK “opposes all discrimination” in its armed forces, also rapped Trump for resisting the trans-gender trend in the military.

But Duncan did not stop there in terms of social radicalism. He noted that the UK’s counsel general in Chicago is promoting the “Love is Great” campaign in Illinois and across 14 states under the counsel general’s purview—including recent participation in Chicago and Denver gay-pride parades where grown men publicly don their privates in front of children. Duncan proudly added that the counsel general recently “brought the London gay men’s chorus to Chicago, to sing with their Chicago counterparts.”

And since Trump’s “America First” views so deeply concern the CCGA and its satellites, the organization sponsored an Oct. 20 public program to explore what America First means for the rules-based world order. For more on that, go to this link: http://www.thetruthhound.com/chicago-global-affairs-survey-is-america-first-populism-being-marginalized-in-favor-of-validating-globalism/

Meanwhile, across the “globosphere,” WACA is having its annual conference Nov. 15-17 in Washington. And higher up the ladder of influence behind the throne, the Trilateral Commission, a younger sibling of Bilderberg, will reportedly meet in the UK in early November. It’s high time that we seek a broader and deeper realization of what these various think tanks and policy associations are up to, forming, as they do, a vanguard to deflect criticism of the globalist enterprise and promote a kind of one-world society that’s wedded to old money and the tyranny it takes to hold it all together—under a deceitful banner of the Western “free world” battling the forces of the “far right” and “populist extremism.”