Lots of CFR members & Bilderberg attendees in Trump's administration

Dec 2015
15,075
13,946
Arizona
#2
Not sure--but betting that most people don't know squat about Bilderberg or CFR. Maybe you'd like to explain--OR I'd be happy to.
 
Likes: Neil
Mar 2018
306
77
Grayson
#3
The standard canard for globalists is to scream conspiracy theory the moment you bring up the topic. But, the bottom line is, the Council on Foreign Relations is located at 58 East 68th Street in New York. They have an agenda and they have supporters on all sides of the political spectrum.

The CFR is so dishonest and so disingenuous that they claim to be a think tank that does not take any position. Yeah, right. That is impossible - especially when every time you have a bi partisan solution the powers that be agree on, it advances the cause of globalism. That's only coincidence. Right?
 
Oct 2010
66,115
26,514
Colorado
#4
The standard canard for globalists is to scream conspiracy theory the moment you bring up the topic. But, the bottom line is, the Council on Foreign Relations is located at 58 East 68th Street in New York. They have an agenda and they have supporters on all sides of the political spectrum.

The CFR is so dishonest and so disingenuous that they claim to be a think tank that does not take any position. Yeah, right. That is impossible - especially when every time you have a bi partisan solution the powers that be agree on, it advances the cause of globalism. That's only coincidence. Right?
Please share your definition of globalism.
 
Likes: Hollywood
Dec 2016
4,812
2,472
Canada
#5
What about other "think" tanks like the Atlantic Council, mostly made up by former CIA and other military and surveillance chiefs...which sets the course for pro war propaganda that respectable mainstream corporate stenographers are supposed to take and argue forth, as if it's their own. And, if that's not enough, is also Facebooks partner now identifying and stopping "fake news!" The fox in charge of the hen house!
 
Dec 2016
4,812
2,472
Canada
#6
When it comes to who runs the world, how it is run, and especially: for who's benefit, that is not secret or something in need of having Alex Jones hiding out in the woods trying to hear what's going on inside the estate hosting a Bilderberg conference!
I've mentioned it before: Sonoma State sociologist - Peter Philips has already done the investigation which only requires exhaustive legwork following a host of money trails all hiding out there in plain sight...in publicly released data:
In Giants: The Global Power Elite, Phillips, a professor of political sociology at Sonoma State University in the USA, identifies the world’s top seventeen asset management firms, such as BlackRock and J.P Morgan Chase, each with more than one trillion dollars of investment capital under management, as the ‘Giants’ of world capitalism. The seventeen firms collectively manage more than $US 41.1 trillion in a self-invested network of interlocking capital that spans the globe.

This $41 trillion represents the wealth invested for profit by thousands of millionaires, billionaires and corporations. The seventeen Giants operate in nearly every country in the world and are ‘the central institutions of the financial capital that powers the global economic system’. They invest in anything considered profitable, ranging from ‘agricultural lands on which indigenous farmers are replaced by power elite investors’ to public assets (such as energy and water utilities) to war.​
More precisely, Phillips identifies the 199 directors of the seventeen global financial Giants and offers short biographies and public information on their individual net wealth. These individuals are closely interconnected through numerous networks of association including the World Economic Forum, the International Monetary Conference, university affiliations, various policy councils, social clubs, and cultural enterprises. For a taste of one of these clubs, see this account of The Links in New York. As Phillips observes: ‘It is certainly safe to conclude they all know each other personally or know of each other in the shared context of their positions of power.’
The Giants, Phillips documents, invest in each other but also in many hundreds of investment management firms, many of which are near-Giants. This results in tens of trillions of dollars coordinated in a single vast network of global capital controlled by a very small number of people. ‘Their constant objective is to find enough safe investment opportunities for a return on capital that allows for continued growth. Inadequate capital-placement opportunities lead to dangerous speculative investments, buying up of public assets, and permanent war spending.’​
Because the directors of these seventeen asset management firms represent the central core of international capital, ‘Individuals can retire or pass away, and other similar people will move into their place, making the overall structure a self-perpetuating network of global capital control. As such, these 199 people share a common goal of maximum return on investments for themselves and their clients, and they may seek to achieve returns by any means necessary – legal or not…. the institutional and structural arrangements within the money management systems of global capital relentlessly seek ways to achieve maximum return on investment, and … the conditions for manipulations – legal or not – are always present.’​
Developing this list of 199 directors of the largest money management firms in the world, Phillips argues, is an important step toward understanding how capitalism works globally today. These global power elite directors make the decisions regarding the investment of trillions of dollars. Supposedly in competition, the concentrated wealth they share requires them to cooperate for their greater good by identifying investment opportunities and shared risk agreements, and working collectively for political arrangements that create advantages for their profit-generating system as a whole.
Their fundamental priority is to secure an average return on investment of 3 to 10 percent, or even more. The nature of any investment is less important than what it yields: continuous returns that support growth in the overall market. Hence, capital investment in tobacco products, weapons of war, toxic chemicals, pollution, and other socially destructive goods and services are judged purely by their profitability. Concern for the social and environmental costs of the investment are non-existent. In other words, inflicting death and destruction are fine because they are profitable.
So what is the global elite’s purpose? In a few sentences Phillips characterizes it thus: The elite is largely united in support of the US/NATO military empire that prosecutes a repressive war against resisting groups – typically labeled ‘terrorists’ – around the world. The real purpose of ‘the war on terror’ is defense of transnational globalization, the unimpeded flow of financial capital around the world, dollar hegemony and access to oil; it has nothing to do with repressing terrorism which it generates, perpetuates and finances to provide cover for its real agenda. This is why the United States has a long history of CIA and military interventions around the world ostensibly in defense of ‘national interests’.
So if you look at the list of 199 individuals that Phillips identifies at the centre of global capital, it does not include names such as Bezos, Gates, Buffett, Koch, Walton or even Rothschild, Rockefeller or Windsor (the Queen of England) despite their well-known and extraordinary wealth. As an aside, many of these names are also missing from the lists compiled by groups such as Forbes and Bloomberg, but their absence from these lists is for a very different reason given the penchant for many really wealthy individuals and families to avoid certain types of publicity and their power to ensure that they do.​
In contrast to the names just listed, in Phillips’ analysis names like Laurence (Larry) Fink (Chairman and CEO of BlackRock), James (Jamie) Dimon (Chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase) and John McFarlane (Chairman of Barclays Bank), while not as wealthy as those listed immediately above, wield far more power because of their positions and connections within the global elite network of 199 individuals.​
In short, as I would characterize this description: They are devoid of a legal or moral framework to guide their actions, whether in relation to business, fellow human beings, war or the environment and climate. They are obviously typical of the elite.
Any apparent concern for people, such as that expressed by Fink and Dimon in response to the racist violence in Charlottesville, USA in August 2017, is simply designed to promote ‘stability’ or more precisely, a stable (that is, profitable) investment and consumer climate.
The study of transnational wealth and power by Philips shows that the captains of industry and investment like Bezos, Gates, Buffet, Zuckerberg etc. have less control over how the system is run than the small group of 199 bureaucrats who make the capital management decisions for 17 funds with more than a trillion dollars worth of assets each! Even Bezos doesn't own most of the shares of Amazon! It's the Asset Management Funds like BlackRock and JP Morgan. So, whatever decisions multibillionaire Bezos wants to make, have to be done in consideration for how his major shareholders will take the news! If they're not happy, and start selling off shares, they can ruin profitable corporations like Amazon which are always in need of new money to keep their stock prices growing! So, the real power is wielded over big name corporations and national governments by a group of plutocrat managers that work mostly away from view of the public, and have no interest in becoming celebrities like the high-flying billionaires.
 
Mar 2018
306
77
Grayson
#7
Please share your definition of globalism.
My definition? How about a dictionary definition?

"a national policy of treating the whole world as a proper sphere for political influence"

Definition of GLOBALISM

Common sense dictates that think tanks don't waste all those hours not wanting to put their ideas into practice. Therefore, what they need more than anything else is mob rule worldwide AND the vehicle to enforce their agenda. That would be a One World Government. That is not a theory; that is a common sense observation.

The problem for me is that America is the only nation with a foundational presupposition that man has certain Rights that are above that sphere of political influence. America was made great by an acknowledgment of, the protection of, preservation of and perpetuation of God given, inherent, absolute, irreversible, unalienable, natural Rights.
 
Likes: Sabcat
Mar 2018
306
77
Grayson
#8
What about other "think" tanks like the Atlantic Council, mostly made up by former CIA and other military and surveillance chiefs...which sets the course for pro war propaganda that respectable mainstream corporate stenographers are supposed to take and argue forth, as if it's their own. And, if that's not enough, is also Facebooks partner now identifying and stopping "fake news!" The fox in charge of the hen house!
The are two basic viewpoints of history: the accident view and the conspiracy view. The accident view disparages any interpretation of events, thereby denying that there are powers that be who have an abundance of control. The conspiracy view becomes hard to maintain for an abundance of reasons.

The worse thing those who would expose conspiracies face is that there are people who make an absolute religion out of conspiracy theory, ultimately brainwashing some people as they did Alex Jones (who ended up saying Sandy Hook never happened.) So, between the crackpots and the conspirators themselves financing conspirators so as to discredit the entire line of inquiry, the truth is hard to arrive at.

That being said, however, the Atlantic Council does work with the Council on Foreign Relations and routinely speaks at their brainstorming events as this link shows:

Trump's National Security Strategy

Bear in mind, these people have a LOT of power with which to influence even Trump with.
 
Likes: right to left
Oct 2010
66,115
26,514
Colorado
#9
My definition? How about a dictionary definition?

"a national policy of treating the whole world as a proper sphere for political influence"

Definition of GLOBALISM

Common sense dictates that think tanks don't waste all those hours not wanting to put their ideas into practice. Therefore, what they need more than anything else is mob rule worldwide AND the vehicle to enforce their agenda. That would be a One World Government. That is not a theory; that is a common sense observation.

The problem for me is that America is the only nation with a foundational presupposition that man has certain Rights that are above that sphere of political influence. America was made great by an acknowledgment of, the protection of, preservation of and perpetuation of God given, inherent, absolute, irreversible, unalienable, natural Rights.
Thanks. I see things differently.

The US is the model for the world, a central limited government comprised of "states," nations.

Finding and actualizing solutions for the problems/challenges humankind collectively faces, with no place left to escape their repercussions, will require coordinated, global effort.

Globalism as a solution is inescapable, and an evolution that if ignored mortally threatens all of humankind, and indeed the earth's biosphere.

However, I doubt humankind will evolve sufficiently to avoid apocalypse. The wheels are in motion, and even cooperation on a global scale beginning tomorrow is unlikely to stop the inertial that has resulted from decisions previously made. The immature idea that some nations can thrive while others decay is both a greedy thought and a fool's errand.
 

Similar Discussions