The evidence is very clearly pointing to the latter scenario, but it's next to impossible to wrap one's head around how private superclass intelligence operations can be kept so completely secret while they are clearly being deployed at an enormous scale throughout our western society. Is it just a bureaucratic organization that switches leadership every four to eight years and is not active domestically? And for the rest just counters terrorists and foreign enemy governments? Or is the "CIA", similar to the State Department, more like a cog in a shadowy, fully private Eastern Establishment machine that is fielding its own left-right intelligence operations through the media, think tanks and political parties it infiltrates, sets up, and controls? In this scenario, Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission and the CFR on the "left" (really "elite" and globalist", but they are often manipulatively accused of being "leftist") - similar to the American Enterprise Institute, Hoover Institution and Council for National Policy on the "right" - are as much CIA front organizations as vice versa: the core network here controlling the CIA and appropriating its capabilities for use in the private sector. Here, of course, we land at the issue that we-the-people still are totally confused as to what exactly "CIA" means. ![]() ISGP's Pilgrims Society has a chapter talking about the Rockefeller and other elite families' ties to the CIA and national security. ISGP's article 'Managed Democracy' is fully dedicated to that aspect. The Rockefeller family itself - at the core of the Eastern Establishment through the CFR, Bilderberg, Trilateral Commission and other globalist NGOs - also fronted for the CIA, as well as largely controlled the CIA by being the effective kingmakers of American presidents and their cabinets, whether Democrat or Republican. So did the anti-Vietnam War protests and partly all the CIA investigations of the 1970s, all of which helped shift public attitude towards the left.Ĭonsidering the right is very much plugged into national security, ties to the DOD and CIA are considerably more direct than with its "liberal CIA" counterparts, where in first instance we always have to remember that the Eastern Establishment's "new left" Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie foundations fronted for the CIA since the start of the Cold War 2, and never effectively ceased doing so upon formally being forced to sever that tie in the 1960s, considering all the persona and think tank ties remained in place, and all the same type of projects continued to be sponsored. JFK and LBJ of the 1960s also played a role. Foundations as Olin first arose in the 1970s as a counter to (Rockefeller) democrat Jimmy Carter, during which time inflation rose from about 4.5% to 11% and anti-"free enterprise" views increased in prominence. The Olin Foundation is defunct now, but a good number of others have picked up this gap, most notably the Mercer Family Foundation, which played an important role in bringing Donald Trump to power in 2016. Much of the funding for this network comes from a number of Christian-Zionist (neocon) foundations as Olin, Bradley and Scaife. 1 All of them traditionally share extremist anti-communist views and, except for certain Christian anti-establishment groups, also an extremist pro-War on Terror stance. Click to see board compositions for 19 as well.Īs for the right, we're traditionally talking about the hardly acknowledged alliance between Christian conservatives, both establishment and "anti-establishment", and neocon Zionist elements. On the liberal "new left" side the classic examples have been the Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie foundations - today supplemented with Open Society (Soros), Bill & Melinda Gates, NoVo (Warren Buffett) and many others. ![]() Strictly put, the terms "liberal CIA" and "conservative CIA" have been introduced by ISGP to denote anti-establishment controlled opposition movements with ties to a certain set of foundations which are historically said to serve as conduits for CIA operations. This is not just due to time constraints, but also because it is not clear yet how much tweaking and adding still needs to be done. And secondly, to identify a core structure within the conservative movement, making it easier to figure out who or what exactly the power behind the throne is here.Īlthough sources can always be found by clicking on the links to the individual point-summaries, notes in the following chapters are limited for now. Its purpose is the same too: organizing large amounts of information into a single page to prevent duplicate content from spreading throughout the site. Think tanks: national security and economics 1.Īs veteran ISGP readers might already suspect, this oversight and article is a mirror of ISGP's "Liberal CIA" article. "Populist" politicians and close allies 1.Īlt-right and Neocon anti-immigration NGOs 1.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |