Sen. Jay Rockefeller Quips About World Domination, Bilderberg (Clip Aired on C-SPAN on October 19, 1991):
JP Morgan, Exxon, Boeing, Among State Department's New Advisers
By Tony Cartalucci, Land Destroyer
December 6, 2011
The Washington Post has recently reported in an article titled, "Hillary Clinton turns to think tankers for new Foreign Affairs Policy Board," that the US State Department will from now on depend on permanent advisory drawn from the ranks of what it calls "think tank scholars." The article also notes that this move is similar to the already existing Defense Policy Board at the Pentagon, and that this is an effort to make the US State Department more like the Defense Department -- however, in which way the author is not clear.
Since the US State Department literally is directing armies of protesters and their armed counterparts in the streets from Tunisia to Syria, from Belarus to Moscow, and from Myanmar to Bangkok and Malaysia, it would indeed make sense to reconfigure it into something more suitable to oversee warfare rather than diplomacy. It is the US State Department from which organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy and its myriad of sedition-sowing NGOs stem from and go forth manipulating foreign governments rather than dealing with them as equal sovereign states, a long-running theme pursued throughout the upper echelons of the "globocratic" elite.
The board the Washington Post describes contains 25 members led by Brookings Institution president Strobe Talbott, former-US Deputy Secretary of State and Rhodes Scholar. The Washington Post then lists 10 other members drawn from these think-tanks, including:
Nina Hachigian, Center for American Progress
Jane Harman, Woodrow Wilson Center
Robert Kagan, Brookings
Stephen Krasner, Hoover Institution
Ellen Laipson, Stimson Center
Vali Nasr, Brookings
Tom Pickering, Brookings
John Podesta, Center for American Progress
James Steinberg, Brookings
Laura Tyson, Center for American Progress
What Does it Mean? Corporate Fascism
Should it alarm Americans to see "think-tank scholars" guiding US policy officially? Considering that these think-tanks have literally written America's destiny for decades, regardless of who was in office and what political ideology they claimed to profess, Clinton's move to fold them into a permanent, official advisory board is but a formality. The Washington Post's presentation most likely makes the average American believe their future and their nation's foreign policy are in capable "scholarly" hands. However, nothing could be further from the truth.
The Brookings Institution, Hoover Institution, Center for American Progress, the Stimson Center, and the Woodrow Wilson Center are all funded by and represent the interests of the largest corporate-financiers on earth, some like BAE (British Aerospace Engineering), not even American firms. This alarming convergence of government and corporations has a name: corporate fascism.
A centralized, increasingly authoritarian autocratic oligarchy constituted of corporations, their policy think-tanks, and even their own directors holding positions both within the government and throughout its various private sector peripheries, not only represents the death of America's Constitutional Republic, but the same alarming threat to the world it faced with the rise of European fascism in Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany and Benito Mussolini's Italy.
Background: Within the library of the Brookings Institution you will find the blueprints for nearly every conflict the West has been involved with in recent memory. What's more is that while the public seems to think these crises spring up like wildfires, those following the Brookings' corporate-funded studies and publications see these crises coming years in advance. These are premeditated, meticulously planned conflicts that are triggered to usher in premeditated, meticulously planned solutions to advance Brookings' corporate supporters, who are numerous.
The ongoing operations against Iran, including US-backed color revolutions, US-trained and backed terrorists inside Iran, and crippling sanctions were all spelled out in excruciating detail in the Brookings Institution report, "Which Path to Persia?" The more recent UN Security Council resolution 1973 regarding Libya uncannily resembles Kenneth Pollack's March 9, 2011 Brookings report titled "The Real Military Options in Libya."
Dominic Barton: McKinsey & Company, Inc.
Alan R. Batkin: Eton Park Capital Management
Richard C. Blum: Blum Capital Partners, LP
Abby Joseph Cohen: Goldman, Sachs & Co.
Suzanne Nora Johnson: Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
Richard A. Kimball Jr.: Goldman, Sachs & Co.
Tracy R. Wolstencroft: Goldman, Sachs & Co.
Paul Desmarais Jr.: Power Corporation of Canada
Kenneth M. Duberstein: The Duberstein Group, Inc.
Benjamin R. Jacobs: The JBG Companies
Nemir Kirdar: Investcorp
Klaus Kleinfeld: Alcoa, Inc.
Philip H. Knight: Nike, Inc.
David M. Rubenstein: Co-Founder of The Carlyle Group
Sheryl K. Sandberg: Facebook
Larry D. Thompson: PepsiCo, Inc.
Michael L. Tipsord: State Farm Insurance Companies
Andrew H. Tisch: Loews Corporation
Some Brookings Experts:
(click on names to see a list of recent writings.)
Daniel L. Byman
Michael E. O'Hanlon
Foundation & Corporate Support:
Foundations & Governments
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
The Rockefeller Foundation
Government of the United Arab Emirates
Carnegie Corporation of New York
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Banking & Finance
Bank of America
Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
Standard Chartered Bank
Temasek Holdings Limited
Exxon Mobil Corporation
Shell Oil Company
Military Industrial Complex & Industry
General Dynamics Corporation
Lockheed Martin Corporation
Northrop Grumman Corporation
The Boeing Company
General Electric Company
Westinghouse Electric Corporation
Telecommunications & Technology
Media & Perception Management
McKinsey & Company, Inc.
News Corporation (Fox News)
Consumer Goods & Pharmaceutical
The Coca-Cola Company
Woodrow Wilson Center
Background: How would you feel if someone told you a well-known American news anchor served as president of an unelected corporate-funded think-tank insidiously steering American policy? It would indeed be a a troubling indicator of the incestuous relationship between not only government and big business, but also the media's role in selling their collective agenda to the public. Sure enough, ABC News anchor Sam Donaldson is the president of the Woodrow Wilson Center which hosts a staggering number of corporate sponsors and serves as host for a multitude of forums and conferences where business and government can come together and freely conspire - all of which can be found in their 2009-2010 annual report.
Global Sponsors p.33
Exxon Mobil Corporation
United Airlines, Inc.
National Sponsors p.33 (partial list)
Best Buy Co., Inc.
The Boeing Company
The Coca-Cola Company
General Mills, Inc.
Marathon Oil Company
National Basketball Association
Procter & Gamble
Shell Oil Company
Contributions, Gifts, & Grants p.36 (partial list)
Carnegie Corporation of New York
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
U.S. Department of State
Open Society Institute (of George Soros)
Smith Richardson Foundation
US Institute of Peace
Center for American Progress
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.
The Stimson Center
Background: Another case of "more of the same," the Stimson Center purports to be "a nonprofit, nonpartisan institution devoted to enhancing international peace and security through a unique combination of rigorous analysis and outreach." In reality it is yet another tangled web of special interests guiding policy that ultimately shows up before a Congress full of bought and paid for by lobbyists and sometimes even advised by lobbyists, as Johan Podesta, Stephen Rademaker, and their colleagues of the above mentioned Podesta Group prove. As with the other think-tanks already mentioned, a mainstay of mega-corporations, corporate-funded foundations, and contrived international institutions likewise fund the Stimson Center.
The board of directors features amongst its members, Robert Boorstin of Google, Carroll Wetzel formally of Dillon Read, Smith Barney, and Chemical/Chase banks, Alton Frye of the Council on Foreign Relations, RAND Corporation, and even a fellow at the above mentioned Woodrow Wilson Center, and Thomas Pickering, formally of Boeing.
Holdings Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi
Bipartisan Policy Center
Canada, Government of
Carnegie Corporation of NY
Center for Global Partnership
Chino Cienega Foundation
Connect US Fund
Una Chapman Cox Foundation
Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund
Finland, Government of
Folke Bernadotte Academy
Fourth Freedom Forum
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
Hills and Company
Japan External Trade Organization
Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
Prospect Hill Foundation
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office
United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations
United Nations Joint Programme on HIV/AIDS
United States Department of Energy
United States Department of State
United States Institute of Peace
United States National Intelligence Council
John C. Whitehead Foundation
The Hoover Institution
Background: At first glance, the Hoover Institution belongs nowhere amongst a left-leaning liberal Democratic Secretary of State's foreign policy advisory board. The Hoover Institution claims in its missions statement that:
The principles of individual, economic, and political freedom; private enterprise; and representative government were fundamental to the vision of the Institution's founder. By collecting knowledge, generating ideas, and disseminating both, the Institution seeks to secure and safeguard peace, improve the human condition, and limit government intrusion into the lives of individuals.Clearly the Hoover Institute is playing the part of a right-wing "think-tank." However, this superficial difference in political ideologies is once again dwarfed by the common denominator of ties to globalist big-business corporate-financier interests.
Taken from the 2010 Annual Report, listed as fellows include, Condoleezza Rice (a Cheveron board member), James Woolsey, and George Shultz (formally of Betchel). Neo-Conservative warmonger and Islamophobia-peddler Daniel Pipes is listed as a "Distinguished Visiting Fellow." Hoover also cultivates an impressive stable of "Media Fellows" drawn from every TV network, newspaper, magazine, and website imaginable.
The Hoover Institute, like the Center for American Progress, obfuscates entirely its funding on both its website and throughout its annual reports. It merely mentions that, "the Hoover Institution is supported by donations from individuals, foundations, corporations, and partnerships." However, the regular suspects, upon viewing their annual reports, are seen to be making donations to the institute. These include the Bradely Foundation, and the Smith Richardson Foundation (which also funds the above mentioned Brookings Institution).
Clearly these organizations have crossed the line and America's policy has been long since dictated by corporate-financier interests. A media machine has been assembled, the likes of which no man has seen before, to sell us this policy. The reason why nothing ever changes, and why we feel political activism is so futile is because it is. Everyone, in every position of power within this corporate-fascist system hears us, but simply couldn't care less. They already have their agenda laid out, their interests outlined within their slick annual reports, the only thing left to do is convince you that it is in your best interest too.
As the article, "Naming Names: Your Real Government" started out:
This is your real government; they transcend elected administrations, they permeate every political party, and they are responsible for nearly every aspect of the average American and European's way of life. When the 'left' is carrying the torch for two 'Neo-Con' wars, starting yet another based on the same lies, peddled by the same media outlets that told of Iraqi WMD's, the world has no choice, beyond profound cognitive dissonance, but to realize something is wrong.And finished appropriately with this:
What's wrong is a system completely controlled by a corporate-financier oligarchy with financial, media, and industrial empires that span the globe. If we do not change the fact that we are helplessly dependent on these corporations that regulate every aspect of our nation politically, and every aspect of our lives personally, nothing else will ever change.
These organizations represent the collective interests of the largest corporations on earth. They not only retain armies of policy wonks and researchers to articulate their agenda and form a consensus internally, but also use their massive accumulation of unwarranted influence in media, industry, and finance to manufacture a self-serving consensus internationally.
To believe that this corporate-financier oligarchy would subject their agenda and fate to the whims of the voting masses is naive at best. They have painstakingly ensured that no matter who gets into office, in whatever country, the guns, the oil, the wealth and the power keep flowing perpetually into their own hands. Nothing vindicates this poorly hidden reality better than a 'liberal' Nobel Peace Prize wearing president, dutifully towing forward a myriad of 'Neo-Con' wars, while starting yet another war in Libya.
Likewise, no matter how bloody your revolution is, if the above equation remains unchanged, and the corporate bottom lines left unscathed, nothing but the most superficial changes will have been made, and as is the case in Egypt with International Crisis Group stooge Mohamed ElBaradei worming his way into power, things may become substantially worse.
The real revolution will commence when we identify the above equation as the true brokers of power and when we begin systematically removing our dependence on them, and their influence on us from our daily lives. The global corporate-financier oligarchy needs us, we do not need them, independence from them is the key to our freedom.