US Brookings Wants to "Bleed" Syria to Death

"Middle East memo" calls for ending ceasefire and purposefully perpetuating violence. 
by Tony Cartalucci 

May 28, 2012 -The Brookings Institution is a Fortune 500-chaired and funded (p. 35 .pdf) US policy think tank and represents policy makers responsible for the vast majority of both America's domestic and foreign policy. While some may naively believe President Obama or America's elected representatives sit behind their desks late at night penning America's future, in reality, they merely use their desks to rubber-stamp what think-tanks like Brookings passes to them.

Which Path to Persia? .pdf
....

And certainly, that policy reflects not the interests of the American people, but of the corporations that spend millions a year to keep these think-tanks flush in cash and ideas, as well as providing them the means to sell these ideas to an unwitting public. Those acquainted with these think-tanks are aware years in advance of wars, conflicts, and conspiracies that take the rest of the public by surprise as events seemingly, "spontaneously" unfold "live" on CNN. 

The Brookings Institution in particular had as early as 2009, articulated a full strategy with which the US would use to undermine, divide, and destroy Iran and its sphere of influence throughout the Middle East. The report titled, "Which Path to Persia?" mentions everything from arming US State Department-listed terrorist organizations, to withdrawing troops from Iraq to allow for an Israel airstrike, to intentionally provoking a war Iran neither sought nor desired. Each one of these options are still, as of today, either fully being executed or "on the table."




Image: Brookings Institution's Middle East Memo #21 "Assessing Options for Regime Change (.pdf)," makes no secret that the humanitarian "responsibility to protect" is but a pretext for long-planned regime change.

....

More recently, Brookings has published "Middle East Memo #21: Saving Syria: Assessing Options for Regime Change (.pdf)," which at face value betrays the narrative the West has attempted to maintain - that humanitarian concerns, not regime change, drives Western intervention in Syria. Not only does the Brookings memo admit the US would like to avoid a settlement or ceasefire that leaves Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in power, but continues on by stating the UN mission can be used as cover to establish "safe havens" and "humanitarian corridors" from which further "coercive action" can be dealt:

"An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first on how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is being done under Annan’s leadership. This may lead to the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian corridors, which would have to be backed by limited military power. This would, of course, fall short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve Asad in power. From that starting point, however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts." -page 4, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.

On pages 8 and 9, the memo states:

"The United States might still arm the opposition even knowing they will probably never  have  sufficient power, on their own, to dislodge the Asad network. Washington might choose to do so simply in the belief that at least providing an oppressed people with some ability to resist their oppressors is better than doing nothing at all, even if the support provided has little chance of turning defeat into victory. Alternatively, the United States might calculate that it is still worthwhile to pin down the Asad regime and bleed it, keeping a regional adversary weak, while avoiding the costs of direct intervention."  -pages 8-9, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.

In other words, the US is seeking to perpetuate endless bloodshed simply to weaken Syria's geopolitical influence throughout the region - most obviously running contra to any concept of "humanitarianism" or "international law," and certainly, purposefully causing more death and carnage, not preventing it. Surely this signed confession seems worthy of airing before the UN Security Council, especially in light of recent revelations that the US and Gulf States are already arming Syria's opposition with this specific perpetuated bloodshed in mind.

The memo continues by articulating various combinations of military intervention and support to be provided to the so-called "Free Syrian Army (FSA)" - this with full knowledge that the FSA has been conducting documented widespread atrocities of their own, having direct ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and conducting a terrorist bombing campaign targeting civilian populations carried out by militants who admit to having fought as Al Qaeda in Iraq against US troops. Again, it appears that Brookings has conspired to violate a myriad of both national and international laws, in particular, USC § 2339B: Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations. 



Image: Some of the corporate sponsors behind the Brookings Institution. America is bled to death literally and financially to fight wars of profit and conquest for these corporate-financier oligarchs on Wall Street and in London. (click image to enlarge)

....

The depths of depravity from which each of Brookings' "options" are drawn is horrifying on a Hitlerian scale and represents not only a moral crisis amongst American policy, but a Constitutional crisis - as the policy makers crafting and promoting these "options" (many of which have already been demonstrably carried out) are entirely unelected, are subject to no oversight, Congressional or otherwise, and worse yet, remain mostly out of the eye of an unsuspecting public. Furthermore, Brookings' "Middle East Memo #21" is a signed confession of a conspiracy against both the people of Syria and world peace - undermining the "moral imperative" and the "responsibility to protect" those behind Brookings' policy papers seek to justify their pursuit of global corporate-financier and military hegemony.

Warning: Corporate Lobbyist At Work

How big money distorts reality by dominating both sides of every debate.
by Tony Cartalucci

May 5, 2012 - Like a tentacle of a sea monster breaking the surface of the water, a recent news story starring a "libertarian" think-tank's billboard comparing "climate change" proponents to Theodore Kaczynski (also known as the Unabomber) represents but a small part of a much larger beast.

Image: While in reality those behind "climate change" hysteria dwarf the threat of Kaczynski, the Heartland Institute is funded by corporations backing just such people. What we are left with is a false paradigm where both sides are controlled by the same corporate-financier interests producing a strategy of tension with which to see through their agenda and prevent real issues and solutions from being realized. 

....

Like in any movie script, the billboard put up by the Heartland Institute is designed to play the role of the villain. Heroically riding in to fight this villain is "Think Progress," a so-called "progressive" project maintained by the Center for American Progress. To the average, poorly informed observer, it appears as if an increasingly heated debate over man's impact on the environment is unfolding, framed by a vitriolic "denier" camp reduced to name-calling, with a dignified progressive camp refusing to move from its foundation of "reason" and "science." 

In reality we are watching two think-tanks funded, backed, and involved with the very same handful of corporations. Both the Heartland Institute and the Center for American Progress are funded by Wall Street and together they create a false paradigm with which to trap unassuming millions while sidelining real issues, problems, and their solutions. 

Think Progress itself exposes the Heartland Institute as funded by major corporations including Amgen, Bayer, Comcast, GlaxoSmithKline, Eli Lilly & Company, Microsoft, PepsiCo, General Motors, Pfizer, and Time Warner Cable. It then berates these corporations for their support for the Heartland Institute in a more recent article of theirs titled, "Heartland Institute Compares Climate Science Believers And Reporters To Mass ‘Murderers And Madmen’." The US Chamber of Commerce is also listed as a contributor to the Heartland Institute in a .pdf provided by Think Progress.

What Think Progress doesn't tell readers is that these very same corporations are recipients of their own John Podesta's lobbying services - because indeed Think Progress and its umbrella organization, the Center for American Progress is chaired by John Podesta, co-founder of the Podesta Group - a notorious corporate lobbying firm involved with some of the most dubious characters and corporations on Earth. Amongst Podesta's clients are the above mentioned Amgen and General Motors, as well as BAE Systems, General Dynamics, General Electric, Raytheon, British Petroleum, Lockheed Martin, and many others.

Video: Meet the founder of the United Nations Foundation, depopulation and climate change enthusiast Ted Turner previously of Time Warner. Turner peddles Malthusian talking-points on national TV attempting to link overpopulation with global warming. And while Turner is no longer with Time Warner, its subsidiary Time Inc is still a corporate partner of the UN Foundation while Time Warner itself is listed as a supporter of the Heartland Institute - guilty of "climate denial." The Fortune 500 is replete with examples of corporations playing both sides of the climate debate. 

....

To fully illustrate this false paradigm, it should be mentioned that one of the patrons of the Heartland Institute and their "climate denial" - Time Warner - though its subsidiary Time Inc is also a corporate partner of the United Nations Foundation - a premier promoter of climate change hysteria. Time Warner's Ted Turner created the foundation with a 1 billion dollar donation and is an outspoken "global warming" and "overpopulation" activist. Joining Time Warner in partnering with the UN Foundation is the Bill & Malinda Gates Foundation, also prominent global climate change activists. Bill Gates being founder and a current chairman at Microsoft - is also a sponsor of "climate denial" at the Heartland Institute.

The Podesta Group openly admits that it conducts media campaigns including planting op-eds in popular newspapers including the Christian Science Monitor and the Huffington Post. The Podesta Group features a "PG At Work" segment on each page of its website showcasing such articles, written either by journalists approached by the lobbying firm, or by Podesta Group members themselves, often never disclosing their affiliations. Similarly, Podesta openly admits it "arranges" for Senators to make specific floor speeches. When one wonders the "how" regarding corporate-financier interests purchasing our elected representatives and manipulating our press, the answer is lobbying firms like Podesta. Ensuring the public goes along with such a flagrant abuse of power and influence is left to the creation of false paradigms, false choices, and emotionally charged misdirecting debates.  

By the same corporations funding a vicious debate moderated by professional lobbyists in their employ, the corporate-financier elite ensure that the public is herded into a matrix of false choices where both real problems and their solutions are non-issues and instead an endless circular debate mired in infinite minutia is conducted. Regardless of which public opinion prevails regarding anthropogenic global warming, the corporate-financier oligarchs have institutions and legislation in place to capitalize, be it big-oil or carbon-credit trading big-banks.

Not Just Climate Change.

Climate change is not the only issue where both sides of the debate are dominated by the same interests for the purpose of maintaining a false paradigm and an effective strategy of tension. Just recently, another media circus was erected around a Chinese "activist," Chen Guangcheng.

Chen had been built up since at least 2008 by another PR firm of sorts, the US State Department's National Endowment for Democracy and its various subsidiaries including Freedom House, the International Republican Institute (IRI), and the National Democratic Institute (NDI). Like Podesta, NED not only plants op-eds across the corporate-media, but maintains a global network of clearinghouses it funds with US taxpayers' money. One such example, Thailand's Prachatai, is fully funded by NED, USAID, and convicted criminal George Soros' Open Society Institute (also a sponsor of the above mentioned Center for American Progress). On a daily basis, Prachatai regurgitates US State Department talking points, while masquerading as an "independent" media organization.

Together, these fraudulent media clearinghouses with Congressional members of NED, IRI, and NDI, turn a nameless, inconsequential "activist" or a contrived human rights issue into an international point of contention - not for the cause of human rights, but to be used as leverage for geopolitical and financial concessions. In China's case, Chen was used as a PR stunt in the lead up to high-profile talks between Washington and Beijing.

And just like with the climate change issue, indeed, the very injustice Chen Guangcheng was protesting, with US money and support, was a creation of the West itself - namely China's draconian population control policies, funded by the UN with the US the primary donor to its "Population Fund."

The "War on Terror" is yet another false paradigm, both created and perpetuated by the West, while it simultaneously "fights" against it. In fact, many of the most adamant proponents of the "War on Terror" are literally lobbying for the US State Department-listed foreign terror organization (#29) Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) of Iran, while others are calling on the US to fund, arm, and politically recognize listed terror organizations like the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) of Libya, and terrorists currently destabilizing Syria.

Image: Rudy Giuliani consorting with MEK's political wing leader Maryam Rajavi in Paris, France. Giuliani is best known for his role playing a strong supporter for the "War on Terror" and his incessant fear mongering versus "Islamic extremists." In real life, he coddles listed terrorist organizations in direct violation of US law and even lobbies for them. 

  ....

While some may be confused as to why one would simultaneously perpetuate a war while trying to end it, the answer is quite simple - the trillions the US is spending to fight the endless "War on Terror" is not going into a black hole, rather, it is going to a myriad of defense contractors while building the foundation for other large corporate-financier interests to plunder nations previously beyond America's geopolitical and financial reach - the ultimate goal being to turn the entire planet into a borderless playground for the corporate-financier oligarchs of Wall Street and London.

What To Do When Both Sides of the Debate Are Controlled.

When we are trapped within a matrix of false choices, a paradigm created by and for the corporate-financier elite, our only recourse is to escape it. We do this by creating an agenda and program of our own while recognizing, boycotting and replacing the corporate interests that have constructed this paradigm around us in the first place.

Picking sides between the Heartland Institute and Think Progress is indeed an exercise in futility but one the corporate-financiers hope you commit to anyway. And no matter where one stands on the issue of "climate change," they end up supporting the same corporate interests regardless. By deciding for ourselves what issues are truly important and entirely ignoring or exposing as a fraud the false debates put in front of us, we can begin making real progress that is in our collective best interests while undermining the elitist minority that has dominated and manipulated public discourse for so long.

Soros Big-Business Accountability Project Funded by Big-Business

Corporate-fascist feel-good scam seeks to crush competition & establish global monopoly with army of NGOs.
by Tony Cartalucci

February 16, 2012 - Called "Revenue Watch" it claims to be "a non-profit policy institute and grantmaking organization that promotes the effective, transparent and accountable management of oil, gas and mineral resources for the public good. Through capacity building, technical assistance, research and advocacy, we help countries realize the development benefits of their natural resource wealth."



In reality, it is a Wall Street-London centric front of monolithic proportions that ensures foreign competitors, including nationalized companies, are prevented from exploiting in many cases their own national resources, so that they may be reserved instead for the West's corporate giants to plunder them. In many cases, this includes funding and organizing opposition groups to take to the streets and physically stop ongoing projects under humanitarian and environmental pretenses.

Video: Thomas Barnett building an army of "system administrators" (aka civil society) to expand into "peace spaces" while US global military conquers "battle spaces." Soros' Revenue Watch along with the National Endowment for Democracy have created just such an army of NGOs. And just as soldiers witlessly promote imperialism believing they are fighting for "freedom," these NGOs expand Wall Street and London's global hegemony, believing they are promoting "human rights."

....

A look at Revenue Watch's "partners" page reveals what at only a superficial glance appears to be well-intentioned, noble civil endeavors. However, upon closer examination, a different story is told.

Who's Partnered With Soros' Revenue Watch?

What the "partners" page represents is an interconnected, incestuous network leading each time back to George Soros' Open Society Network, the OCED, USAID, British DIFD, Australia Aid, and the UN Development Program, all of which are directly partnered with the largest banking, big oil, defense contractors, and consumer multinationals on earth.

The very first "partner" on Revenue Watch's list, Democratic Republic of Congo's Action Contre l’Impunité pour les Droits Humains (ACIDH), is entirely funded by George Soros' Open Society, OCED Watch, and the European Commission. Other organizations listed, such as "RAID" and Cee Bank Watch Network (itself a Revenue Watch partner), are in turn Soros, Ford Foundation, Sigrid Rausing Trust, Freedom House, Heinrich Boell Foundation, and European Commission-funded fronts.

The African Centre For Media Excellence fails to list who in fact funds them, but they do report that their "Reporting on Oil, Gas and Minerals" training courses are conducted in partnership with Penplusbytes (listed as OSIWA & OSISA respectively and a Revenue Watch partner itself) and Thomson Reuters Foundation (page 42) both of which are Soros-funded, while the latter is also funded by US State Department-funded BBC World Service. One can only wonder why corporate-financier interests would be involved in "training" locals on how to report about their own natural resources, to prevent exploitation, or help facilitate it?

Other partners include the Canadian and Australian government-funded Parliamentary Centre and the Soros-funded "Publish What You Pay," which polices governments of resource-rich nations on how much money they receive from multinational corporations and how they spend it.

Middle East & Asia: The British DFID, UNDP, Soros-funded TIRI, and World Bank-funded, Integrity Watch Afghanistan. The resource management-oriented Indonesian-based Institute for Essential Services Reform, created by USAID, the Asian Development Bank and Germany's KfW "development bank." The Iraqi Institute for Economic Reform (IIER) whose board of trustees includes Dr. Kamal Al-Basri formally of General Electric Capital, Barclays, and Lloyds Bank and Mustafa Al-Shawi a professor of Salford University, UK and a consultant for UN and World Bank projects, and who under a category titled "other activities" claims to be "doing business with World Bank."

The IIER also claims to have "good working relationships with several international ogranizations and NGOs including CIPE, IRI, USIP, and CATO Institute." Of course CIPE is funded by the US State Department, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which also funds the IRI (International Republican Institute), and USAID. The USIP (US Institute of Peace) is also a creation of the US government. In other words - the IIER is seeking "economic reform" according to Wall Street and London's interests.

Africa: The African Conservation Foundation funded by British Airways, defense contractor Esri, Microsoft, and the "Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO). The Soros, Ford Foundation, DFID, Australian Aid, USAID, World Bank, Tides, European Commission-funded Agency for Cooperation and Research in Development. The Ford Foundation, EU, US & British government-funded "Zimbabwe Environmental Law Association."

The Improprieties.

While it is clear that despite the myriad of organizations listed within Revenue Watch's "partner" list, with pages of smiling brown children, giraffes, green meadows, and windmills, it all leads back to a handful of government and corporate-funded foundations, and this alone should warrant cautious scrutiny, a tangible impropriety can demonstratively be seen playing out where Soros and the cabal of corporate-financier elite he represents are fighting most desperately.


Image: CIA's Otpor fist has made its way around the world from Serbia and across the "Arab Spring." It is now "punching" Chinese-Myanmar cooperative development, in particular the "Shwe Gas Project" with funding and support from NED, George Soros' Open Society, and the OCED.

....

Amongst the myriad of organizations listed on Revenue Watch's partnership list, is the Shwe Gas Movement. There are no smiling brown people to be found here, instead the clenched fist of the CIA's Otpor movement can be seen "punching" Chinese-Myanmar oil rigs and pipelines, as well as mobs waving Wall Street-London creation Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy flags in the streets of London.

Video: The Shwe Gas Movement protest takes to the streets of London, waving the flag of Wall Street-London creation, Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy.

....

We see photo galleries where the "Shwe Gas Movement" seems to be attempting to raise international awareness of the "impact" of a pipeline being built from Myanmar's southern coast all the way to the north where it continues on into China. Aside from muddy construction sites. trucks transporting pipe segments, and equipment photographed with a temple in the distant background with the caption "religious area disturbed by project equipment" nothing seems to be taking place that is any more or less extraordinary than one would find surrounding any large scale infrastructure project.


Image: Shwe Gas Movement's caption for this photograph reads, "Religious area disturbed by project [equipment]." One must wonder why the photographer picked this angle, when a closer view of the temple and how it was being "disturbed" would have been far more compelling.

....

Ironically, a visit to the website of notorious extraterritorial meddler and Neo-Con, corporate-financier chaired National Endowment for Democracy, reveals money allotted for just this sort of "activity" in Myanmar, still called by its British colonial nomenclature "Burma" by NED:

"To raise awareness, strengthen local net­works, and mobilize activists in resource extraction-affected areas of western Burma. The organization will train local field researchers in information documen­tation and community mobilization methods and raise awareness internationally and within the affected areas about the mili­tary’s natural resource extraction projects."

We've already seen the US and British governments through an array of foreign-funded NGOs succeed in shutting down, at least temporarily, the Myitsone Dam. The dam, in addition to raising revenue for Myanmar by selling electricity to China, would have provided a percentage of electricity for Myanmar, along with flood control, river navigation, and irrigation for the surrounding region and eventually would end up under full ownership of the Myanmar government after fulfilling a 50 year contract with China who was financing and building it.

Clearly the Shwe Gas Movement is part of yet another army of foreign-funded NGOs working in tandem with similar organizations around the world, primarily in Africa and Southeast Asia, to prevent the development and exploitation of natural resources under the guise of human rights, environmental protection, and any other narrative imaginable that people may be likely to believe.

Could this really be for the sake of human rights and environmental considerations?

Enter the Multinationals.

Of course, Soros and NED funding projects to shut down the cooperative development of Myanmar with its immediate neighbor to the north, China, alone indicates corporate-financier interests at play. NED's entire board of directors is represented by certified warmongers, Neo-Conservatives who have signed their name to the Hitlerian "Project for a New American Century," declaring their intentions to establish a 100 year reign of American global hegemony, and a mixture of corporate lobbyists and consultants.

It is highly unlikely they stopped the Myitsone Dam or are attempting to stop the Shwe gas project to preserve Myanmar's pristine environment and to savor the smiles on the brown faces their corporations and war machine have been devouring since Marine Corps General Smedley Butler wrote "War is a Racket." Indeed, at the highest levels funding Revenue Watch's activities and the myriad of organizations it is partnered with is the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).


Image: OCED nations - also looking suspiciously like Wall Street and London's sphere of influence and NATO's membership.

....

The OECD was born of the various "international institutions" created by the victors of World War II to rebuild the shattered world in the shape of their choosing. It was the precursor of the European Union and it still exists actively funding the destruction and criminal consolidation of sovereign nation-states today. Composed of an Anglo-American axis including the European Union, it is involved in the UN and the various "aid" organizations of respective member countries, USAID, DFID, and Austrian Aid for example.

OCED's member countries fund its activities, but that doesn't mean OECD is anymore under the reins of democratically elected representatives than the national policy of each member nation. It has been illustrated in depth that corporate-funded think-tanks are indeed the creators and purveyors of Western policy both domestic and foreign. Likewise, corporate-financier interests drive the OECD, the driver's seat being its Business and Industry Advisory Committee (BIAC). In their own words they claim:

"BIAC has contributed much over the past fifty years towards the OECD’s work promoting open and competitive markets, level playing fields and sound regulation and governance; fighting against protectionism; and enabling businesses to compete and succeed in an increasingly complex global marketplace."

Clearly OCED's association with Revenue Watch is much like a thief with a crowbar - that is to use the organization to pry off the locks of protectionism and national sovereignty. Revenue Watch is creating the "level playing fields" and "fighting against protectionism" in nations that would otherwise develop their indigenous resources without giving OECD's member nations an opportunity to profit in markets that surely would not be considered "open and competitive" from their globalist points of view. Of course, the wealth of OCED's member nations was built not only on protectionism, but in many cases centuries of extraterritorial exploitation, military conquest, and sweeping global empires.

OCED through its OCED Watch organization counts the above mentioned Shwe Gas Movement as a member. Open Society is also counted as a US member, along with "International Rivers" who helped participate in the shutting down of the above mentioned Myitsone Dam. UK members include Amnesty International and the above mentioned RAIDS. As a Zimbabwe member, the above mentioned Zimbabwe Environmental Law Association is listed. Another Revenue Watch member, the Democratic Republic of the Congo's "Action Against Impunity for Human Rights" is listed on the OCED Watch site as a member. And the list goes on.

OCED's BIAC lists as its member organizations the various chambers of commerce in each member nation. This includes the Australian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Confederation of British Industries, and the United States Council for International Business (USCIB). These collectively are the largest corporate-financier interests on earth and many of the multinational corporations listed also constitute the boards of directors, trustees, and sponsors of the most influential think-tanks on earth.

These are the very think-tanks that engineered the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, and have laid plans to topple Syria and enact regime change in Iran. They are also the think-tanks that have articulated an agenda of realigning ASEAN against China to encircle and contain the rising superpower, militarily and economically.

When we see Wall Street's George Soros in tandem with the UN and OCED funding NGOs trying to stop Chinese-Myanmar pipelines and dams that benefits both nations, it is clearly being done as part of implementing these documented plans to balk China's rise and prevent the development of nations in the region. It is not that Soros and the OCED want to preserve Myanmar's resources for the people of Myanmar, it is that they want those resources, the wealth and power they represent for themselves while denying any nation the ability to rise and possibly compete with the Wall Street London international order.


Image: From SSI's 2006 "String of Pearls" report detailing a strategy of containment for China. The blue arrow represents China's logistical life-line and the nation's it passes. It also represents the target of Wall Street and London regime change efforts, destabilization, and meddling NGOs seeking to cut it.

....

With OCED's BIAC corporate-sponsors including DuPont, ExxonMobil, GlaxoSmithKline, Nestle, Shell, Unilever and others, behind the same think-tanks that destabilized and carried out an armed proxy NATO invasion of Libya, ousting Chinese and Russian interests and rushing in with Western contracts, it is clear what they intend to do in other regions of the world where they direct their feigned humanitarian concerns. In Libya, we even saw the installation of a Petroleum Institute chairman, Abdurrahim el-Keib, as "prime minster." In Uganda, British firms under the cover of fake environmentalism had 20,000 people forcibly evicted from their property to "plant trees" and cash in on the carbon trading pyramid scheme.

Indeed, Revenue Watch is nothing more than a feel-good fraud drawing in countless well-intentioned people from around the world, some of them risking their lives for what is essentially the construction of a 21st century corporate-financier ruled global empire. It is an empire where everyone will lose except those at the very top. And despite Soros' assurances that he is a left-wing liberal and the endless slide shows of smiling Africans playing on his websites, he is indeed amongst one of the most vicious, persistent corporate-fascist facilitators alive.

Ready to Put Down that Pepsi?

While the scale of Revenue Watch and the Soros-OCED-corporate-fascist nexus driving it seems monolithic and indomitable, tracing back to the source of their power we find individual consumers like you and me. By identifying the corporate-financier interests driving this, listed conveniently by the USCIB on their membership directory and in the annual reports of think-tanks across the Western world, we can then begin boycotting and replacing them with local solutions.

While it may seem like doing something as small as not buying Coke or Pepsi is an act of futility, it is exactly everyone buying one or two products a day from these giant, global spanning multinationals that have granted them this unwarranted influence in the first place. In a world where so much is out of our reach and beyond our control, reading this article, being outraged, and immediately doing something about is most certainly not.

FAQ: Why are Globalist Think-Tank Documents Public?

Q. Why are such research documents - Which Path to Persia? or "String of Pearls" - made public on the web? If these are in fact strategic and provide a view into the world of powers that run the show on our globe, why would they allow such "sensitive" information and "plans" to be made public for everyone to read?


Image: Despite producing the vast majority of rules, regulations, laws and policies that dictate the destiny of Western civilization, as well as drawing up plans for war, these corporate-funded, corporate-serving think-tanks are little known amongst the general public. Despite publishing much of their work on publicly accessible websites, most people will never know about it, let alone take the time to read it.

....

A. You can't keep global empire a secret - by necessity you need people to believe in your cause - even if you dress it up and spin it as something other than naked conquest. The global corporate-financier elite manage access to information by marketing different levels of it to different demographics. This has been done throughout all of history. The explanations provided to the aristocracy to keep them in line was more straight-forward and pragmatic than the absolute fantasies used to dupe and manipulate the common man.

It works in layers - papers like "Which Path to Persia?" being toward the top are aimed at people who believe in global governance and globalization - professors, senior editors, CEOs etc. who falsely believe they have a stake in the process - and while it is made public, it is generally inaccessible to the average reader because of its use of academic English, length, and very high minimum requirements in understanding the history, strategy, geopolitics, and human nature necessary to understand the contents.

On Brookings' own website you will also see their policy makers pen articles and op-eds for newspapers, sufficiently dumbed-down, in plainer English, and with noticeably more spin in place of the straight-forward frankness of pieces like "Which Path to Persia?" Consider Kenneth Pollack, co-author of "Which Path to Persia?," then penning this fluff piece, "Iran's Covert War Against the US" for the Daily Beast.

Below that is your corporate-media propaganda which is almost entirely useless and also the most widely viewed by the greatest number of people. Those that believe anything they see on CNN or Fox are generally unaware that organizations like Brookings even exist - despite their "experts" often being brought on for commentary and analysis.

As much as the alternative media has grown, a tremendous amount of ordinary people have still never heard of PNAC, Agenda 21, Brookings (let alone any specific work of theirs) and so on. Also keep in mind that "Which Path to Persia?" while being incredibly frank and incriminating, is not necessarily the pinnacle manifestation of their conspiracy which most likely would not be "public." However, human nature being what it is - we can take what they do make known, and what human history has already taught us and extrapolate what indeed they are really up to and why.

I am acutely aware of a possible strategy of tension created by dictating the tempo and nature of global conflict by publicly releasing apparent intentions - then again the global elite of Wall Street and London really are subverting governments with US/UK funded NGOs and there is a paper trail overtly, publicly proving it. Since these NGOs are defended publicly as doing "humanitarian" work when targeted governments crackdown on them, they must show where their funding comes from and appear, at least to the ignorant, as legitimate. Despite both governments -the aggressor and the besieged - knowing the truth, the fact that so many gullible people don't understand that the "National Endowment for Democracy" is actually a corporate fascist front, tips the balance of power in favor of the greater propagandist - Wall Street/London.

Of course, the only thing we can ever be sure of is ourselves, our family and friends, and people in our immediate community. That is why facing the vast landscape of geopolitics and a means of implementing change across it is better off being started in your own backyard, on your own block, and in your own community. It is easy to identify those in society who have acquired unwarranted influence, and just as easy in many cases to immediately begin boycotting and replacing them with local solutions.

Think-Tanks Explained

Or, Where National Policy Comes From.
by Tony Cartalucci

January 12, 2012 - I was shocked to see the corporate-financier Lowy Institute of Australia tweet a story explaining the ins-and-outs of think tanks. I was equally shocked to actually read the article, titled "Devaluing the Think Tank," written by Tevi Troy and published in "National Affairs." It describes what is basically an extra-legal process where national policy is not produced by our elected representatives within the legislative branch, but rather in these policy think-tanks and in some cases, even described as being "marketed."


Image: "Your nation's policy has been brought to you by...." These represent just some of the corporate sponsors of just one single think-tank (the Brookings Institution) that creates both foreign and domestic policy for the United States, extra-legally beyond the nation's legislative branch, as well as the blueprints for America's future wars of conquest. Afterward, all that remains is for "elected representatives" to rubber stamp it and for the corporate-media to sell it to an unsuspecting public.

....

I was impressed by the depth at which Troy covered the inner workings of policy think-tanks and was only disappointed in three respects. One, Troy never mentions who actually funds and directs these think-tanks. Two, because of the first omission, the illusion that these think-tanks are aligned along and driven by political parties is created. And three, Troy whitewashes, and even defends think-tanks and their role in policy making that should remain exclusively within the realm of elected representatives and the legislative branch.

However, these omissions are easily remedied by reading "Naming Names: Your Real Government" and "Clinton Turns to Naked Corporate-Fascism" where the real forces driving this think-tank industry described by Troy is fully explained. While reading these three articles together is not going to be "light reading," those who succeed in doing so will walk away fully enlightened of how policy, both domestic and foreign, is created throughout the dominion of Wall Street and London.

Understanding how utterly futile faith in our representative form of government is when our "representatives" are simply handed policy by established think-tanks funded by a combine of billion-dollar multinational corporations is the first step in devising viable solutions to correcting this enormous imbalance of power.

Quite obviously, if corporate-financier interests dominate our policy because of the immense wealth and unwarranted influence we have granted them through our patronizing them, boycotting and replacing them back down to size would be a good first step.

To illustrate how complementary Troy's article is with "Naming Names," and "Naked Corporate Fascism," consider these two excerpts:

"Devaluing the Think Tank" by Tevi Troy

"The Center for American Progress is easily the most thoroughgoing example of what City College of New York professor Andrew Rich has called "marketing think tanks." For these institutions, the balance between original research and public relations is clearly tipped in the direction of the latter. As Rich puts it, these organizations often seem more interested in selling their product than in coming up with new ideas. CAP in particular seems to have turned marketing and organizing into an art form. According to a 2008 article by Bloomberg's Edwin Chen, CAP devoted about 40% of its resources to communication and outreach that year, eight times as much as typical liberal policy organizations did. At the time, CAP had a budget of $27 million and claimed 180 staffers, employing about as many full-time bloggers (11) as PPI did scholars. CAP has even been involved in the Occupy Wall Street protests: According to the New York Times, CAP "encouraged and sought to help coordinate protests in different cities"; a spokesman for the center told the Times that "we've definitely been publicizing it and supporting" the movement."

"Clinton Turns to Naked Corporate-Fascism" by Tony Cartalucci

Center for American Progress
americanprogress.org

Background: The Center for American Progress holds transparency in contempt, refusing to reveal on its website or in its annual report, exactly who is paying the bills. While "right-wing-styled" institutes are generally more proud to show off their corporate sponsors - a sign that they are for the "free market," allegedly left-leaning organizations attempt to portray their efforts as subsidized on goodwill alone. We saw this earlier this year when the self-proclaimed "independent" Prachatai, a "liberal news website" according to the BBC, which was exposed to be funded millions of Thai baht a year by the Neo-Conservative lined National Endowment for Democracy. Likewise, just beneath the surface of "American Progress" are billionaire bankers, corporate-lobbyists, and everyone else one would consider corporate-fascist.

The New York Times exposes the center's backers in an article titled, "John Podesta, Shepherd of a Government in Exile." And while the New York Times attempts to portray the center as "liberal," and its the lack of transparency as "normal," what we find is yet another corporate infested organization of unelected policy makers, producing reports and bills on behalf of the planet's monied elite, that are passed to Congress for rubber stamping, while their connections throughout the corporate-media ensure that the policy is promoted, sold to, and accepted by the public.

The New York Times reveals George Soros as a donor, as well as Peter Lewis of Progressive, a Fortune 500 insurance company, and Herb Sanders, formally of World Savings Bank, who made billions in the "mortgage industry." The center itself is headed by John Podesta, whose colorful career within the United States government is elaborated at length within his bio featured on the center's website. And despite the New York Times' long, ranting history of Podesta's ties to the Democratic party, what is never mentioned by either, is that he also heads a Washington lobbying firm, the Podesta Group representing corporate-financier interests including Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and British Petroleum.

A long and self-incriminating "record" of their past work can be found on their website. Despite the colorful pictures and adjectives used to describe Podesta's work, what is essentially representing corporate-special interests in Washington, we may see the clearest example yet of what and of whom these think-tanks are really made of -hardly "scholars." Lobbying firms like Podesta are literally the glue that holds this un-Constitutional, corporate-fascist system together. While bills like the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation shut down small, start up competitors, Podesta was busy "convincing" Congress that its client didn't need to be regulated - resulting in a system that is literally stacked against the people, in favor of the Fortune 500 - Wall Street and London.

Podesta even brags about its ability to use the media to manipulate public opinion on behalf of their clients. Ed Rothschild's biography on Podesta's site claims:

"Chairing the Podesta Group’s energy and environment practice, Ed crafts and executes government relations and public relations strategy for many of the firm’s clients, including companies, trade associations and advocacy groups. With his deep Rolodex of media contacts and communications savvy, Ed provides messaging guidance and media training, and opens doors to media outlets for clients."

Under a section of the Podesta Group's website titled, "International," is a breathtaking admission of how lobbying groups drive foreign policy for "clients," be they foreign governments or international corporations.

"Some consider international policy and Washington politics to be separate entities - we know better. Whether the client is a foreign government, international corporation or interest group, our team of experts is a favorite for international entities with regulatory, legislative and communications needs in Washington. Our strategists have worked in senior positions in the offices of Washington’s foremost decision makers, with international law firms and think tanks. They have experience at the highest levels of journalism, and have worked abroad, affording a global perspective necessary to crafting successful strategies here in the US. Routine tactics for many complex projects rarely work. Our international team understands the unique needs of global interests and in developing and executing customized strategies that are effective in any political environment."

On the same page, beneath the category, "PG at Work" and "PG in the News," we see links that lead off to the New York Times, Washington Post, and the Christian Science Monitor featuring Podesta's employees literally writing editorials and articles, the vast majority of them calling for or defending war with nations across the planet. Podesta employee Stephen Rademaker is even featured in an article declaring that he is now a "foreign policy adviser" for presidential hopeful Mitt Romney.

Clearly Mr. John Podesta is as compromised as any man can be in Washington, and clearly in bed with corporate-financier interests while heading a "think-tank" policy front simply dressing up his lobbying work with a certain air of "scholarly" credibility. Now, and hopefully to the alarm of all Americans, these lobbyists will be directly advising the US State Department.

Clearly Troy, while whitewashing and spinning the implications of "CAP's" activities, still gives readers insight into how they operate. The latter excerpt then gives readers a more detailed explanation of who funds CAP, why, what their real agenda is, and how they carry it out.

Not only will reading these three articles give us the ability to understand how policy is made, how our society is governed, and a starting point from which to begin changing this obviously fraudulent system, but by understanding where our policy comes from and following these think-tanks instead of the disingenuous corporate-media that then spins and sells these policies to the public, we can tell what the global corporate-financier elite are really doing and why.

Devaluing the Think Tank
Naming Names: Your Real Government
Clinton Turns to Naked Corporate Fascism

Big Oil's Tree Huggers

Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
by Tony Cartalucci

It's not entirely accurate to call the Belfer Center merely a big oil representative that forms the spearhead of promoting the theory of anthropogenic global warming and the resulting Ponzi-scheme environmental policies proposed to deal with it. They also meddle deeply in the affairs of foreign nations, have banking magnates lining their advisory board, as well as lobbyists like Belfer adviser Robert Blackwill of Barbour Griffith & Rogers salvaging the failed efforts of a US-backed now exiled Thai prime minister.

Belfer Center is a mixed bag of self-serving corporate agendas. As an international think-tank located within one of America's most "prestigious" universities, it turns out to be nothing more than a den of deception and intellectual dishonesty, as we'll see as we peel back the cheap veneer of legitimacy.

Named after Robert Belfer of the Belco Petroleum Corporation and later, director of the failed Enron Corporation, the Belfer Center describes itself as being "the hub of the Harvard Kennedy School's research, teaching, and training in international security affairs, environmental and resource issues, and science and technology policy." Robert Belfer still sits in as an International Council Member, begging one to wonder what sort of "research" is going on within the halls of a center named after a man synonymous with big oil and big fraud.

Belfer's director, Graham Allison is also an astounding example of self-serving American corporatism steering US policy. He was a founder of the Trilateral Commission, a director of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a consultant to the RAND Corporation, Director of the Getty Oil Company, Natixis, Loomis Sayles, Hansberger, Taubman Centers, Inc., and Belco Oil and Gas, as well as a member of the advisory boards of Chase Bank, Chemical Bank, Hydro-Quebec, and the shady International Energy Corporation, all according to his official Belfer Center bio.

Other questionable characters befouling the halls of this nefarious nexus include Belfer alumnus, Goldman Sachs creature, free-trade pusher, CFR member, and now World Bank president Robert Zoellick. Sitting on the board of directors is CFR member and former Goldman Sachs consultant, Ashton Carter. There is also former director of Citigroup and Raytheon, former Director of Central Intelligence and CFR member John Deutch, who required a pardon by US President Bill Clinton to avoid prosecution over a breach of security while fumbling his duties at the CIA. Meanwhile, Nathaniel Rothschild of Atticus Capital and RIT Capital Partners, Paul Volcker of the Federal Reserve, and former DHS secretary Michael Chertoff all serve as Belfer Center's "advisers."

Last but not least, there is John P. Holdren, also a Council on Foreign Relations member, science adviser to both President Clinton and current US President Barack Obama, and co-author with Paul Ehrilich of the now notorious "Ecoscience." When Holdren isn't brand-building for "Climate Disruption," he is dreaming of a Malthusian fueled totalitarian global government that forcibly sterilizes the world's population. He feared, erroneously as all Malthusians have done throughout history, that overpopulation would be the end of humanity. He claimed in his hubris filled, fact deficient book, "The No Growth Society," that by the year 2040, the United States would have a dangerously unsustainable population of 280 million he called "much too many." The current US population is over 300 million, and despite shockingly incompetent leadership, it is still sustainable.

Considering this, and that Holdren's fellow board members leading this center of "research" are nothing more than a collection of career bureaucrats, bankers, oilmen, suspected criminals and fraudsters, he himself then comes across as difficult to take seriously.

These have been the halls within which America's "climate policy" has been refined, documented and presented during the various public relations stunts in Kyoto, Copenhagen, Cancun, and throughout the legislatures of the United States. It is quite obvious that the combination of Holdren's quackery and the involvement of the most parasitic and corrupt corporations on Earth are doing nothing but exploiting people's genuine concerns for the environment.

We should come to expect as much from our government and our universities as big money's tentacles wrap themselves around our nation's institutions and bend them to their own self-serving will. Through Belfer's halls pass not only the subpar leaders of America today, but also the subpar leaders of America's tomorrow.

Belfer runs a fellowship program churning out throngs of America's next Robert Zoellick's, Fareed Zakaria's, and Philip Zelikow's, ensuring the continuation of their agenda well into the future. That is of course, unless we strip them of their self-proclaimed legitimacy, publicly expose the conflict of interests undermining their prestigious mandate, and make it once again shameful to be a villain in America. Harvard's Belfer Center should be as synonymous with fraud as the Enron scandal the Belfer Center's namesake helped preside over in 2001.